English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories
0

2006-06-12 03:23:58 · 29 answers · asked by robbyc de olugallo junior 1 in Science & Mathematics Mathematics

29 answers

1+1=2

2006-06-12 05:17:50 · answer #1 · answered by Apoorva 3 · 0 0

The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

2006-06-12 03:29:37 · answer #2 · answered by williegod 6 · 0 0

I thought 1+1=2?

2006-06-12 03:25:11 · answer #3 · answered by Corn_Flake 6 · 0 0

What kind of proof?

It is posible, but I don't no the proof.

Everyone else is an idot. It is posible to prove 1+1=1. Ordinarirly we think that 1+1=2, and that is true, but 1+1 can =1.

2006-06-12 03:25:36 · answer #4 · answered by Titainsrule 4 · 0 0

1=1+1 proof

rewrite the equation

1+1proof = 1
1 proof = 1-1

therefore
1 proof = 0.

2006-06-12 03:33:44 · answer #5 · answered by Ho K 3 · 0 0

no. 1+1=2. 2-1=1 1-1+1=1 or 10,834 - 10,833= 1

2006-06-12 03:25:47 · answer #6 · answered by alter_tygo 5 · 0 0

given a matrix of [x], the range of feasible solutions is something like the nucleus of the atom, the matrix of high velocities, consider in this regard that yes the universe is that proof for God is greater than the sum of the parts, but have you really seen God walking down the street?.... More i will elaborate with here

in 2-d graphs, y=summation notation(z=x.0 at the top, nth series of prime(x) in the mid, and the bottom number is 7)

you can graph a number written in an irrational base, such that 1 + 0 written in base 1 = 2, so the electron and the positron beg to persuade an alternate route to string theory dynamics, and in this we must seclude ourselves from our tendencies to regiment energies, rather than simply identify with how to manipulate them through complex circuitries such as the ones that make super conductors out of copper given the following dynamic:::

you take a copper pyramid, feed it resonant wavelengths in base 10 simultaneously symbolic of 17771 which is a 5 digit palindromic prime that repeats itself as 1/2 the base of the number of the base that number is written as, so this gives a permutations of ranges of forces that balance out when given a bunch of iron that is in a sphere in the middle, which balances out the dormant instinct of copper to act as a super conductive circuit. it works with the human hand this way too sometimes, if you use all 7 chakras at the same time. You ASKED A VERY VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION. THANK yOU ;)

2006-06-12 03:32:03 · answer #7 · answered by gekim784l 1 · 0 0

let a=1
b=1+1=2
c=0
d=infinite

a/c=d
b/c=d

so a=b
i.e 1=2

2006-06-12 03:30:10 · answer #8 · answered by anand_neo 2 · 0 0

1+1=2 thats a silly question!

2006-06-12 03:25:13 · answer #9 · answered by ♥♡ღ••Kelly••ღ♡♥ 4 · 0 0

I'm trying to prove that here:
"let us assume you're in a train with velocity 100Km/hr and you're in the front of the train, then you shoot a bullet from your pistol, let us assume the velocity of the bullet is 500km/hr
therefore the speed of the bullet will be the addition of its velocity and the velocity of the train i.e. 500+100=600lm/hr (thats means velocity+velocity, 1+1)
now let me show you another thing.
let us assume you're tavelling with the light speed, and while you're travelling you originate a light (this light's speed is also the same of the speed of the light), then according to the same example above the speed of the light originated is double the ligh speed (speed of your travelling+speed of the light originated), but there's no speed faster than the speed of light, therefore the speed of the light originated will still the same of your travelling (travelling speed+light speed = 1+1=1)

What about that.
oh my hands are tired lol, I hope I could help a bit.

but something I like in the answers, someone wrote when you get marreid, you and your wife will become one, that's wonderful.

2006-06-12 03:36:15 · answer #10 · answered by sexy_hot_man2006 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers