>>17601523Nope. I don't think so. By that logic, 2+2=1. I get what this person is trying to say though. If you follow the philosophy that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, then those 4 squares can come together and form a new object, which can be designated as #5. But when counting quantities, it's still 4 squares, and if those seams are eliminated and they are bonded, then it really does become one square.
But for this new config to be expressed as data, it would need a designation separate from the designation of a single square, and that would also put them in different classes. It would be something like "square 1" and "square 2" and since the second object is a combination of 4 of the smaller ones, it can be counted as a single quad combo with the designator "square 2" but you still start off with "square 1" which totals 4. Also, because each of these squares needs to be represented as a point of data, they require unique ID's to prevent double counting and other general database redundancies and errors. So each of the 4 small squares would have its own ID and, combined, you would end up with an array that would have to contain that data for functional purposes. What if you wanted to undo a joining or redo it? Regardless, you're back to one object, counted as one item, expressed as an array table of info about the assembled parts. Still counted as 1 separate thing and there is no way to logically count it as #5 still.
Bottom line is that you'd have to be pretty abstract for this to be viable, and it would end up requiring constantly changing definitions and rules to fit within this idea. It's ass backwards from a scientific method standpoint. But pseudo-intellectualism runs rampant in today's world, especially on social media.
