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 âº)
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⤋