Originally Posted by Michael Noonan

My mistake my friend I failed to acknowledge that you are indeed 'trained' in the language of mathematics and I am not. I am saying that "every" conceivable option would be most thoroughly and exhaustively undertaken to be absolutely certain to ensure that His mathematics does prove to be correct. In fact it is my belief and just that my humble and unimportant belief that He would be made to wait to ensure that full and exhaustive testing of His hypothesis and predictions could be carried out before the Absolute Theory Of Everything could receive approval from the properly appointed discipline of scientific endeavour and then He could be properly in the running, as He might be for consideration in the nominations for a Nobel Prize.

To the best of my knowledge I do not remember saying that the scientific community would participate in a fraud, just due process. However if I have made an error of judgement then I will again humbly submit that I am mistaken and will dutifully offer a full and unconditional apology.

Now to return to an earlier question I have so far failed to answer.



In the non capacity of lacking credentials I will offer this:-
It depends on the absoluteness of the operand '=' because if in the ordinary simple mathematics it is immutable then the left and the right side of the equation are not in balance. Nature even at co-ordinate points of singularity does 'seem' to fail the laws of mathematical immutability.

If the operand '=' is a barrier and is not immutable then as in nature various situations of flow can exit to balance the left and the right sides, be it a flow or a storm or destruction of an excess on one side or the creation of new material on the other. There is some excellent reading to be had with regards to tipping points.

If on the other hand it is missing some of the required information to explain the nature of why 2+2=5 such as the left and the right sides also being described by the appropriate logarithmic or exponential equations at the point of 2, 2 and 5 respectively then it is through the lack of inside knowledge that the equation loses meaning ... much like 6*9=42 in base 13.

But you are right as others on this forum have so kindly informed me, I do not have the mathematical training and required credentials to identify the simple equation of 2+2=5 under the limited understanding of the rules of mathematics (such as I have) as anything other than wrong.

In many ways mathematics can be viewed with the same degree of awe as the beautiful language of the French. It is to be admired and appreciated and above all respected and so to dare to use it without full knowledge of the absolute beautiful precision of the language is to commit an utterly vulgar act indeed.