2006-10-05 19:44:09 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Mathematics
Math is a principled belief in a philosophical understanding
with respect to common math yes 1 + 1 = 2
with respect to understanding No
it is all in the manor in which you examine the conundrum, and to what mathematical formula you use.
2006-10-05 20:26:02 · answer #1 · answered by Thoughtfull 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
What if 1+1 did not equal 2. What if 1+1 = 3 or some other random number.
It is possible, in fact you could make up a whole branch of mathmetics with 1+1 = 3 or 3 * 3 = 10. But the math wouldn't be useful to our everyday life.
So to answer your question 1+1 = 2 because physically acceptable and it keeps little kids brains from exploding.
2006-10-05 19:58:54 · answer #2 · answered by Phillip 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not careful and 1+1 can = 3
2006-10-05 20:00:17 · answer #3 · answered by saturn 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Peano postulated: every natural number has a follower, Always he difference is 1 by definition. The follower of 1 is 2.
Th
2006-10-05 20:10:06 · answer #4 · answered by Thermo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here's one from "Ask Dr. Math":
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html
Or an excerpt from Principia Mathematica:
http://humor.beecy.net/misc/principia/
2006-10-05 19:48:50 · answer #5 · answered by John's Secret Identity™ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not really - it's a matter of definition, or counting, not proof. If you call this many asterisks (*) one, you put two of them together you get (**). The word for this many (**) is 'two' in English, or, using a symbol '2'.
2006-10-05 19:56:20 · answer #6 · answered by James F 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That's the thing about proofs . . .there's a little subjectivity to them.
2006-10-05 19:45:43 · answer #7 · answered by a_blue_grey_mist 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
yes there is..
1 (you) and 1 (me); together we make 2 (you + me)
2006-10-05 19:46:24 · answer #8 · answered by jv637 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
well u r not taking any right benefit from this concept of yahoo answer
ask some thing conceptual
2006-10-05 19:52:57 · answer #9 · answered by Nick 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, you should accept it as a fact without proof.
it is a definition.
2006-10-06 01:07:33 · answer #10 · answered by farsh m 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋