The RPG Maker Resource Kit
RMRK General => General Chat => Topic started by: Zylos on January 11, 2008, 09:12:32 PM
-
Here on RMRK, we've all passed elementary school. We all know that 1+1=2 and 2+2=4. Pretty basic math.
That's what I thought too, until I started an argument with one of my college professors. He believed that one plus one does not equal two. Unfortunately, one can't argue too much with one's college professor without getting into trouble, so I dropped the arguement and let it slide.
Needless to say I thought the guy was insane, but when I later checked up on this, I found that there were numerous other people who also believed that one plus one does not always equal two. Some mathematicians scientifically "proved" that one plus one did not equal two but rather 1.997 (although their "proof" is highly questionable). Others had more plausable reasons, such as where c=speed of light, 1c +1c = 1c (1+1=1), and used examples like 1g + 1kg = 1.001kg, since no variables are defined in the expression 1+1=2. But in all the theories, the point remained the same: one plus one does not always equal two.
So what do you people think? Does one plus one equal two or does it not (and why)?
-
1+1=2
-
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1
.3333... + .3333... + .3333.... = .9999......
Some professors are indeed insane
1 + 1 = 2
-
1+1=2
I think this is the first time I agree with you
Most ordinary people don't need to know too much. So, 1+1=2
-
1/3 = 0.333
3/3 = 0.999
1 = 0.999
0.999 = 0.998
0.997 = 0.998
0.997 = 0.999
0 = Infinity.
-
See this is impossible because we created the mathematics system and one was made to equal one. I don't take .999 baseballs. Trying to change this is only for those people who want to be scientists but can't do anything to save their lives so they try and be famous by fucking up our mathematics system.
Anyone who believes this needs to go back to school
-
1 = 1.0
-
I asked my professor why he believed that one plus one does not equal two and he said that since no two objects are exactly the same (even in cloning), we cannot add two items together and say we have exactly two items. There is always a margin of error.
For example, everyone here would probably agree that if I have an apple in each hand, I have two apples. But to my professor since the apples are not the same size, I am not truly holding onto two apples but rather approximately two apples +/- some small percent.
Personally, I think it's just BS, but there are a lot of people who (like my professor) truly believe that 1+1 doen't equal 2.
-
Numbers were created and are used to count the whole of an object.
Saying that an object is .999 would be irrelevant because you HAVE to either count it as one whole or count it by it's mathematical dimensions. Saying everything is not one but infact .999 is a total lie.
-
My opinion: Your professor is an idiot. Give him a poket calculator for his birthday or whatever the nearest holiday would be.
-
An apple is one apple no matter what size it is.
Just because your penis is smaller than the normal size does not mean it's a half of a penis. It's still a whole penis.
-
But if half of your penis was cut off, then it'd only be half a penis.
It is however true that there can be different units, and obviously 1 + 1 would be equal to 0 in mod 2. But, for theoretical purposes, 1 + 1 = 2. Obviously in the real world, we do not necessarily quantify things in this way. For instance, if you give two kids an apple each, but one is much smaller than the other, then you have not equally distributed the food you have. Even though you gave each boy exactly one apple, you gave less to one boy. In that case, 1 =/= 1 with regards to the amount of food that was distributed. That is just because we quantify an apple as 1 if it is whole, and we do not use units of size to quantify an apple.
Numbers were created and are used to count the whole of an object.
Saying that an object is .999 would be irrelevant because you HAVE to either count it as one whole or count it by it's mathematical dimensions. Saying everything is not one but infact .999 is a total lie.
.9 repeating is equal to 1. It is nonsense to say that something is 1 but is not .9 repeating.
-
There is also no set size for an apple to be considered a "whole" apple.
-
There is also no set size for an apple to be considered a "whole" apple.
Fist sized.
-
1 + 1 = 1.997
I agree.
-
1+1=2 only when considering no other factors, if you brought another factor into it then it would not be exactly 2, e.g 1kg+1kg=2kg, it is not 1+1 but 1kg+1kg, when those numbers are put together you get 2kg, not 2 but 2kg. Therefore 1+1=2. If someone can find one example of 1+1 not equaling 2 I'll rep them.
-
There is also no set size for an apple to be considered a "whole" apple.
Yes there is. EU standard.
-
Numbers were created and are used to count the whole of an object.
Saying that an object is .999 would be irrelevant because you HAVE to either count it as one whole or count it by it's mathematical dimensions. Saying everything is not one but infact .999 is a total lie.
First time I agree with you.
:tpg:
-
1+1=2 only when considering no other factors, if you brought another factor into it then it would not be exactly 2, e.g 1kg+1kg=2kg, it is not 1+1 but 1kg+1kg, when those numbers are put together you get 2kg, not 2 but 2kg. Therefore 1+1=2. If someone can find one example of 1+1 not equaling 2 I'll rep them.
Since 1g and 1kg are not the same thing, it would be more like 1kg and .0001kg or 1000kg and 1g.
They are not the same.
-
1+1=2 only when considering no other factors, if you brought another factor into it then it would not be exactly 2, e.g 1kg+1kg=2kg, it is not 1+1 but 1kg+1kg, when those numbers are put together you get 2kg, not 2 but 2kg. Therefore 1+1=2. If someone can find one example of 1+1 not equaling 2 I'll rep them.
1 :bean: + 1 :mex: = 1 :bean: + 1 :mex:
1X + 1Y = 1X + 1Y
The reason is because their variables are not similar, therefore not equaling 2. :)
-
I guess every board needs a SSOG, RIGHT MALSON!? hahahaha
-
o_o
I asked my professor why he believed that one plus one does not equal two and he said that since no two objects are exactly the same (even in cloning), we cannot add two items together and say we have exactly two items. There is always a margin of error.
For example, everyone here would probably agree that if I have an apple in each hand, I have two apples. But to my professor since the apples are not the same size, I am not truly holding onto two apples but rather approximately two apples +/- some small percent.
Personally, I think it's just BS, but there are a lot of people who (like my professor) truly believe that 1+1 doen't equal 2.
What a retarded professor. One is always one. It will be and it always has been. One drawn or shown may not be exactly the same but all of math is pretty bullshit if you ask me. We take "one" and we "add" it to another "one" and we get a new freakin' thing called "two." Like Calvin says, math is a lot like religion. It requires a crap load more of faith and we somehow get by in the world with this made up idea.
-
I guess every board needs a SSOG, RIGHT MALSON!? hahahaha
Singapore Stream Owners Group?
-
Mathematics is a very flawed system created by humans. You will never need to know that 1+1 equals anything other than 2.
-
http://slyph.org/4ch/b/14856181.html
-
that's exceedingly gay, roph
-
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg02.picoodle.com%2Fimg%2Fimg02%2F4%2F1%2F17%2Ff_1equals1REAm_8d8f5ab.png&hash=6f0388db9173fe80dbe8b83182c48851c6decfd0)
Now what's wrong with THAT picture? (Highlight it to make it readable)
-
The fact that negative one and one are not equal in value? ;8
-
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg02.picoodle.com%2Fimg%2Fimg02%2F4%2F1%2F17%2Ff_1equals1REAm_8d8f5ab.png&hash=6f0388db9173fe80dbe8b83182c48851c6decfd0)
Now what's wrong with THAT picture? (Highlight it to make it readable)
the step: ((-1)^2)^(1/6) is incorrect. Where a, b, c are integers, it is not generally true that a^(b*(1/c)) = ((a)^b)^(1/c). That is generally true only when a is restricted to the non-negative numbers
-
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg02.picoodle.com%2Fimg%2Fimg02%2F4%2F1%2F17%2Ff_1equals1REAm_8d8f5ab.png&hash=6f0388db9173fe80dbe8b83182c48851c6decfd0)
Now what's wrong with THAT picture? (Highlight it to make it readable)
the step: ((-1)^2)^(1/6) is incorrect. Where a, b, c are integers, it is not generally true that a^(b*(1/c)) = ((a)^b)^(1/c). That is generally true only when a is restricted to the non-negative numbers
ilu MA
-
Except in systems and enviroments where it does not apply 1 + 1 = 2
1+1=2 only when considering no other factors, if you brought another factor into it then it would not be exactly 2, e.g 1kg+1kg=2kg, it is not 1+1 but 1kg+1kg, when those numbers are put together you get 2kg, not 2 but 2kg. Therefore 1+1=2. If someone can find one example of 1+1 not equaling 2 I'll rep them.
Binary system: 1 + 1 = 10 :p
-
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg02.picoodle.com%2Fimg%2Fimg02%2F4%2F1%2F17%2Ff_1equals1REAm_8d8f5ab.png&hash=6f0388db9173fe80dbe8b83182c48851c6decfd0)
Now what's wrong with THAT picture? (Highlight it to make it readable)
the step: ((-1)^2)^(1/6) is incorrect. Where a, b, c are integers, it is not generally true that a^(b*(1/c)) = ((a)^b)^(1/c). That is generally true only when a is restricted to the non-negative numbers
that step is actually correct
((-1)^2)^(1/6) = ((-1))^(2 * 1/6) = ((-1))^(2/6)
It's the ^(1/3) = ^(2/6) that is wrong. While 1/3 = 2/6,,you can't do the same with exponents. Still,,that stuff is pretty cool.
-
Err, yes you can.
I am correct about the fact that a^(bc), where b and/or c are fractions, is not generally equal to (a^b)^c, unless a >= 0. As far as I know, the other thing is fine. Maybe both steps are wrong though :/
-
1+1= stuff on a bun.
- Ed
-
Except in systems and enviroments where it does not apply 1 + 1 = 2
1+1=2 only when considering no other factors, if you brought another factor into it then it would not be exactly 2, e.g 1kg+1kg=2kg, it is not 1+1 but 1kg+1kg, when those numbers are put together you get 2kg, not 2 but 2kg. Therefore 1+1=2. If someone can find one example of 1+1 not equaling 2 I'll rep them.
Binary system: 1 + 1 = 10 :p
+rep to you
-
Given that
* Step 1: Let a=b.
* Step 2: Then a^2 = ab,
* Step 3: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab,
* Step 4: 2 a^2 = a^2 + ab,
* Step 5: 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 + ab - 2 ab,
* Step 6: and 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 - ab.
* Step 7: This can be written as 2 (a^2 - a b) = 1 (a^2 - a b),
* Step 8: and cancelling the (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives 1=2.
-
You aren't allowed to divide by 0, and this topic is old
-
1+1=2 its correct
then there is [1/3+1/3+1/3]+[1/3+1/3+1/3]=1.997
put it in a calc.
it makes sense only that way.
Edit:I actually got 1.998!
makes no sense to me now.
Edit2: its is 1.998 but how you get 2 is if you round .008 to the closest number and eventually get 2.
-
1 plus 1 only equals 2 because that is the way we have taugh ourselves all these years...
If they had taught us 1 plus 1 equals fish...
We would be having this argument about fish and monkeys...
instead of 2 and 1.997
-
1=5
2=10
3=15
4=20
5=1 not 25
This just proves that we learn mathematics the same way we learn history.
Memorizing and lloking for patterns.
-
This is what happens when your math professor sleeps during Logic class.
1+1 always equals 2 unless you add something into the equation to make it something different, like 1x +1x =y.
The apples are seperate objects. You can have more than one of those objects, regardless of what size they are. You have an apple in one hand, an apple in the other. You have two apples. You don't have 1.997 apples until you bite a peice, a small peice, off of one.
-
I guess every board needs a SSOG, RIGHT MALSON!? hahahaha
yes
-
watch this i'm gonna be so original here and go out on a total limb by saying
1+1=2 theres no possible way it could be anything else a theoretical one is the same size as a theoretical other one because its all made up and even if your talking about a real object here its still one object 1 rock + 1 moon (which is still a rock) = 2 rocks the size doesn't matter the principle of 1+1=2 will always be the same no matter what the size and if your professor can't see this hes either retarded or has a brain that thinks so differently from all other human beings its deserving of a condition title (such as asburgers or dyslexia) and even so i still find it hard to believe that he does not even understand the basic principles of math the only way what he is saying could be true is if there was a defined official size for the object and all objects were that size or they had to have had something taken away from them in which case his theory of no two things being the same size would not be applicable to that situation unless all of the objects in question had actually had something taken away from them
-
1+1 has been 2 since like... a long time ago
so unless youre a scientist of some strange, ergh, thing,
1+1 doesnt need to be anything but 2. i mean whats the point..
-
Except in systems and enviroments where it does not apply 1 + 1 = 2
1+1=2 only when considering no other factors, if you brought another factor into it then it would not be exactly 2, e.g 1kg+1kg=2kg, it is not 1+1 but 1kg+1kg, when those numbers are put together you get 2kg, not 2 but 2kg. Therefore 1+1=2. If someone can find one example of 1+1 not equaling 2 I'll rep them.
Binary system: 1 + 1 = 10 :p
here's a few more:
According to "Gray Code": 0001 + 0001 = 0011 (or 2) (in Decimal) (if you add them across)
or 0001 + 0001 = 4 (if you add them mathematically),
since 0001 = 2.
According to Binary-Coded Decimal (BCD): 0001 + 0001 = 0001001 = 11
1 + 1 = 11
1 + 1 = 1 (One WHOLE number)
According to ASCII = 1 + 1 = 2 = 0110010
or
0110001 + 0110001 = 0110010 = 2
According to "AND" (logic gate circuitry), Two inputs: 1 (on) + 1 (on) = 1 (on) (Output)
-
STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD D:<