...what? The doesn't establish that 2 + 2 = 5. I understand math are based on axioms, but changing the axiom used changes the definition. 2 + 2 =/= 5. 2t2 may well equal 5, but that's not the same equation. One does not prove or disprove the other.
Other than demonstrating that people equivocate, I don't understand what that indicates.
The point of my argument is that people use different rules to "prove" things. That was the original point if you remember. If math were so universally accepted then most people would love them, not hate them. They are almost counter intuitive to the human perception.
I recall your point, but what you provided doesn't demonstrate that 2 + 2 will not always equal 4. The only possible way it could is if you accept that + has no meaning and can be substituted for anything, but this is demonstrably false. It denotes a specific relationship. If you were to change + to t without maintaining that relationship, it becomes something entirely different and has no bearing on the original expression.
What about the praxeological action axiom? Can that be falsified somehow?
...what? The doesn't establish that 2 + 2 = 5. I understand math are based on axioms, but changing the axiom used changes the definition. 2 + 2 =/= 5. 2t2 may well equal 5, but that's not the same equation. One does not prove or disprove the other.
Other than demonstrating that people equivocate, I don't understand what that indicates.
The point of my argument is that people use different rules to "prove" things. That was the original point if you remember. If math were so universally accepted then most people would love them, not hate them. They are almost counter intuitive to the human perception.
Arbitrary language on the other hand...
I recall your point, but what you provided doesn't demonstrate that 2 + 2 will not always equal 4. The only possible way it could is if you accept that + has no meaning and can be substituted for anything, but this is demonstrably false. It denotes a specific relationship. If you were to change + to t without maintaining that relationship, it becomes something entirely different and has no bearing on the original expression.
What about the praxeological action axiom? Can that be falsified somehow?
I didn't posted it because it makes sense to me but because it makes sense to others.
I have no idea