What is the difference between these questions?

Question

1. What must x unite be to unity?
2. What must unite to be x?

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO QUESTIONS?

Answer 1

The first one makes no sense and the second one makes grammatical sense but is too vague to be answered. That is the difference between those two questions...

Answer 2

As human reproduction is concerned
1. What must x unite be to unity?,answer =X must unite with Y or X to be either a male child(Unity)
2. What must unite to be x?,answer =must unite with X to be female child (FEMALE)
Philosophically
X must unite with the soul to be one with the spirit.
Duality of thought must unite to be X.

Answer 3

I suspect that you meant the first question to be

1. What must x unite TO BE unity?

If that's the case, here's the difference:

The first question presupposes that x ALREADY EXISTS and will be doing the "uniting".

The second question presupposes that the things to be united will be doing the uniting. x DOES NOT EXIST until it is created by the action.

Both questions ask what those "things" are.

This is assuming, of course, that I read your questions correctly.

Big Al Mintaka

Answer 4

In #1 X is an operator. In #2 X is the result.

Answer 5

In human interactions, teasing is provided in 2 significant varieties, playful and hurtful. while teasing is playful and friendly, and surprisingly while it quite is reciprocal, teasing could be recognized as flirting. human beings would be teased on such concerns as their visual charm, weight, habit, skills, and outfits. From the sufferer's factor-of-view, the variety of teasing is greater often than not hurtful, regardless of the objective of the teaser. while teasing is unwelcome, that is recognized as harassment or mobbing, surprisingly contained in the artwork place, or as a variety of bullying or emotional abuse. If accomplished in public, that is recognized as humiliation.Arts have many branches.i do no longer understand no remember if there's a branch for teasing, grasp of teasing. Then,the pinnacle of the dept fits to odampully for the grasp of teasing. Odampully can get anger on seeing some solutions. Odampully would desire to understand the way many hurted on seeing his unfounded allegations he published as questions. He would desire to comprehend the thoughts.why he gets anger and the contributors did no longer contain answer wantonly. They coach him the meaning of injury. that is not any longer very own attack with the aid of fact the asker pointedout. The God and Goddess are our existence.He can defame together with his liberty and injury the feelings, and the comparable liberty is with regards to all human beings.he takes a weapon, the comparable weapon some contributors cleverly used. what's incorrect? The asker seems to be partial. i think she in a roundabout way helps odampully. She would mistook me, yet while i fail to pointout this there is not any meaning in giving an answer.Mathangirani would desire to comprehend my factor. Mahatmagandhi did satyagraha.Teached Ahimsa.Time is working.there is distinction now.it quite is my coverage to circumvent him. some contributors nonetheless giving solutions, would be they're supporters of him. they'd desire to comprehend they're doing injury to the religion and god. please boycott him is my answer.

Answer 6

I have no clue? You asked the other day what the definition was and I told you remember the word unite?
But what is the x business?
Is it algebra or scientific question in physics what?
Exemplify please.
Happy New Year

Answer 7

omg you are on another tangent aren't you????????????????
Why drive us nuts here on line??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????