rugcat said:
But Lolly, don't forget, 2+2 still equals 4. The number 11 in base 3 merely reflects a system where the numerical representation of the quantity "4" notates as "11."
Right. I probably won't express this well; however, I'm going to give an attempt.
When I write "the event {* *}," I mean that there are two things. So, if one holds two golf balls in one's hand, I'll say that the two-ness is the event {* *}. Three golf balls is the event {* * *}.
It is always true that if one has an event {* *} and adds to it a second event {* *}, the result is the event {* * * *}. That is, two plus two always equals four.
The numerals "2" and "4" are part of a system of representing the events above. Because "2" and "4" are arbitrarily defined, they can easily be redefined as we wish. One way we could do that is to change our base. In our usual counting, the numerals go from 0 to 9, and then when we go up one more, we put the digit back to 0 and put a 1 in front of it: "10."
In binary, we do that when we go past 1, so 2(base 10)=10(binary). This change in base doesn't affect the fact that the event {* *} plus the event {* *} equals the event {* * * *}.
Switch gears
There is a type of math called modular arithmetic. The most common way to think of it is this: clock math. If it's 8:00pm and I wait five hours, the new time will be 1:00am. It has its applications, but it's not a counter example to the fact that 2+2=4, because without indicating that one is operating in modular arithmetic, the default is what we're normally used to.
Sorry if that makes no sense. I did my best. ^_^