Dear Banjo, david f. and George,

1+1+ (etc.) = 1 is a mathematical representation of the former de facto motto of the United States: "E pluribus unum," (out of many, one). Thus, the expression also has an entirely secular meaning.

.
 
Dear David, George, & JKUU,
 
.
 
George wrote :
 
« Actually, it is worse than that. I get 1 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, if I follow your reasoning, … ».
 
I confirm the reasoning – but do not consider it worse.

I understand there is no specific mention of the trinity in the bible, the closest allusion being:
 
“ And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God “. [Luke 1:35 (King James Version)]
 
However, to interpret this as a trinity is to totally ignore one of the principal characters described in the scene : Mary.
 
The trinity is a concept of unknown origin, open to conjecture.

The Catholic church adopted the concept and, according to its web site, elaborated its Trinitarian doctrine in the year 381 during the second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, based on the declarations of the first Council of Nicaea in 325.
 
Jesus is a typical example of an anthropomorphic deity.

The Trinity is presented as the composition of his family. However, Mary is conspicuous by her absence. The role of the mother has been totally eclipsed, as though she did not exist and was completely dispensable.
 
The bible presents the conception of Jesus as a “macho” or, should I say, “all male” affaire of what is now known as gestational surrogacy. It is not the least of paradoxes that the Catholic church condemns such practice today, apparently considering it to be a divine privilege.
 
There is nothing to justify such a misogynous concept - for the mother to be treated so differently from the father. It is a quaternity, not a trinity. But then that, of course, raises the question of the statute of the godly couple’s other children, the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
 
Hence the pertinence of your algorithm, which I prefer to inverse :
 
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 1
 
.

Dear Banjo,

I wrote “worse” because 8 > 3 and provided it with a smiley.

Recently somebody here started a discussion about the claim that infinity = -1/2. I tried to explain that this was based on a misunderstanding, but did not think we should engage in here in detailed discussions of how the Riemann-zeta function was defined (although I probably understand more about analytic functions than about the complicated evolvement of Christian doctrines).

So the smiley was just to indicate that I find 1+1+1=1 as silly as infinity = -1/2, whatever the reasons for making such statements might be.

.

Dear George,

.

Thanks once again for your explanations which, I assure you, are always useful.

Needless to say, I am sorry you find my algorithm “as silly as infinity = -1/2”. I should have hoped you would find it slightly less silly.

Counting eight times the same “sheep” as just one seems quite sensible to me – but I have to bow to your superior knowledge of mathematics.

Not only am I a very ordinary person but, apparently, a silly one at that.

At least I am learning, George !

.

Dear Banjo,

The “silly” adjective applied to the mathematical statements as they stood not to you; au contraire. Apologies for causing that misunderstanding.

it seems clear to me
1plus1plus1=something RIGHT OUT OF 1984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5

as an example of an obviously false dogma one may be required to believe, similar to other obviously false slogans by the Party in the novel. It is contrasted with the phrase "two plus two makes four", the obvious—but politically inexpedient—truth.

Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes it, does that make it true?

*The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals, O'Brien, says of the mathematically false statement that control over physical reality is unimportant;..**so long as one controls their own perceptions to what the Party wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of doublethink..

("Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three.
Sometimes they are all of them at once")

Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality.

Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink#Origin_and_concepts