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

11 answers

Only if you are assuming that the 1 is not labled, and must be.

1 what?

1 dozen + 1 dozen = 2 dozen
but 1 dozen + 1 dozen = 24 as well.

2006-09-11 16:57:30 · answer #1 · answered by Sean06 2 · 0 0

Well, there are ways to get mathematical "errors" like if you say that the square of -1 is equal to 1 it SHOULD be equal, but if you try to solve the equation you will end with a -1 = 1
so i think you could try this:

2
( -1) = 1
___
-1 = \/ 1

-1 = 1

maybe you can change it to demonstrate what you want

2006-09-12 00:10:27 · answer #2 · answered by Marcelo 2 · 0 0

Consider this proof: (this has a blatant math error. Try to figure out the error).

Let x = y, both nonzero.

so, x^2 = xy

x^2-y^2 = xy - y^2

use: a^2-b^2 = (a+b)(a-b).

so, (x+y)(x-y)=y(x-y)

or, x+y = y,
or 2x = x.
or 2 = 1.

You can have any variation of this to show 1+1 is not 2, but 1 and 1 is four.

What is the math error in the above proof?

2006-09-12 00:15:57 · answer #3 · answered by jinxy 2 · 0 0

It's NOT a fact that 1+1=2. That's just what everyone tells you. Nobody has actually PROVEN it.

2006-09-11 23:58:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

One plus one equals two.

That is an imperical fact.

If someone was to prove that 1+1 does not equal 2, then the proof, and not the fact, would be in error.

2006-09-11 23:57:08 · answer #5 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0 0

1 bacteria plus 1 bacteria is an infinite/exponential number....... so it doesnt always mean 1 plus 1 is 2

2006-09-11 23:58:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

only if the symbols 1 & 2 represent something other than the usual numbers...

2006-09-11 23:58:02 · answer #7 · answered by dan 4 · 0 0

Sure, if one man plus one woman, get pregnant and have a baby then 1 + 1 = 1.......

2006-09-11 23:55:21 · answer #8 · answered by Answer Girl 3 · 0 1

You can call it whatever you like. It's only 2 by definition. (Actually, in base 2 it's 10 ☺)


Doug

2006-09-11 23:54:35 · answer #9 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 1 0

There is one "proof" I have seen, but it relies on dividing by zero, so is (obviously) fallacious.

2006-09-11 23:55:53 · answer #10 · answered by aryeh_cls 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers