Forum
»
1 x 1 = 2
- Results 1 to 5 of 5
-
Page 1 of 1
Thread: 1 x 1 = 2
03-05-2026, 02:37 PM
-
#1
1 x 1 = 2
Reification is defined as delusion to treat abstract as concrete
Reification in math didn’t start until the Sumerians 5000 years ago were given a false view of reality and deceived
Before this math was based in concrete reality
Now that you know this:
I can look at concrete reality and see that 1 cell through an action(x) with itself( 1 cell) = 2 cells. You need abstract delusion to say 1x1=1
by squaring the internal action, this is not addition, it is inherent growth. Multiplication is an exponential expansion, not a static count, and the square root of the result proves the initial action was a doubling
And this is not a redefining of words or meaning, its only a redefining of maths current rules of “because i said so.”
This is a cut throat bullet proof argument of your math that bypasses the linguistic filters designed to get you running in circles. Take this argument ONLY with the premise of disregarding only maths current rules of “because I said so” and it’s bullet proof. And again not redefining word or meaning, only redefining maths current rules of “because I said so.”
Youre getting deceived so much right now it’s not even funny. This should bother you to your core
Reification in math didn’t start until the Sumerians 5000 years ago were given a false view of reality and deceived
Before this math was based in concrete reality
Now that you know this:
I can look at concrete reality and see that 1 cell through an action(x) with itself( 1 cell) = 2 cells. You need abstract delusion to say 1x1=1
by squaring the internal action, this is not addition, it is inherent growth. Multiplication is an exponential expansion, not a static count, and the square root of the result proves the initial action was a doubling
And this is not a redefining of words or meaning, its only a redefining of maths current rules of “because i said so.”
This is a cut throat bullet proof argument of your math that bypasses the linguistic filters designed to get you running in circles. Take this argument ONLY with the premise of disregarding only maths current rules of “because I said so” and it’s bullet proof. And again not redefining word or meaning, only redefining maths current rules of “because I said so.”
Youre getting deceived so much right now it’s not even funny. This should bother you to your core
03-05-2026, 02:52 PM
-
#2
03-05-2026, 02:57 PM
-
#3
- Sigmund_Evil
- Banned
-
- Sigmund_Evil
- Banned
- Join Date: Feb, 2026
- Posts: 1,325
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By Mr_83⏩
damn
Personally I'm just willing to take the symbols of math at face value to hide the fact I don't know or care about them and am probably a retard.
Trust me when I say, the FEDs are watching.
Officer Randolf Shitler
The great journey waits for nobody.
03-05-2026, 03:03 PM
-
#4
- N0rds
- "7'7" Norwegian chad with blonde hair blue eyes immigrant and a btc billionaire" -Tranny Maria
-
- N0rds
- "7'7" Norwegian chad with blonde hair blue eyes immigrant and a btc billionaire" -Tranny Maria
- Join Date: May 2012
- Location: AntiTranny Aktion
- Height: 6'6"
- Posts: 32,443
- Subscribers: 7
- Rep Power: 449741
-
-
Originally Posted By Gesten1⏩
Sorry, I can't read red.
Reification is defined as delusion to treat abstract as concrete
Reification in math didn’t start until the Sumerians 5000 years ago were given a false view of reality and deceived
Before this math was based in concrete reality
Now that you know this:
I can look at concrete reality and see that 1 cell through an action(x) with itself( 1 cell) = 2 cells. You need abstract delusion to say 1x1=1
by squaring the internal action, this is not addition, it is inherent growth. Multiplication is an exponential expansion, not a static count, and the square root of the result proves the initial action was a doubling
And this is not a redefining of words or meaning, its only a redefining of maths current rules of “because i said so.”
This is a cut throat bullet proof argument of your math that bypasses the linguistic filters designed to get you running in circles. Take this argument ONLY with the premise of disregarding only maths current rules of “because I said so” and it’s bullet proof. And again not redefining word or meaning, only redefining maths current rules of “because I said so.”
Youre getting deceived so much right now it’s not even funny. This should bother you to your core
Reification in math didn’t start until the Sumerians 5000 years ago were given a false view of reality and deceived
Before this math was based in concrete reality
Now that you know this:
I can look at concrete reality and see that 1 cell through an action(x) with itself( 1 cell) = 2 cells. You need abstract delusion to say 1x1=1
by squaring the internal action, this is not addition, it is inherent growth. Multiplication is an exponential expansion, not a static count, and the square root of the result proves the initial action was a doubling
And this is not a redefining of words or meaning, its only a redefining of maths current rules of “because i said so.”
This is a cut throat bullet proof argument of your math that bypasses the linguistic filters designed to get you running in circles. Take this argument ONLY with the premise of disregarding only maths current rules of “because I said so” and it’s bullet proof. And again not redefining word or meaning, only redefining maths current rules of “because I said so.”
Youre getting deceived so much right now it’s not even funny. This should bother you to your core
Anyone have a translator?
"Boss not feel good please use sick day" - low IQ tranny.
"Send him to Phaggy_Cholo"
03-05-2026, 03:16 PM
-
#5
Originally Posted By Mr_83⏩
In reality people who are not indoctrinated into the system can understand this more than someone who has been indoctrinated since birth to believe the map is the territory
Personally I'm just willing to take the symbols of math at face value to hide the fact I don't know or care about them and am probably a retard.
Someone who is into math since birth pretty much can’t even grasp these things. If they do it’s very rare. Like only .03%
Anyone who isn’t indoctrinated can speed run through some concepts without stepping inside the false axiom, and look at it from outside and spot the deception
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts