One plus one equals...1.997?

that's exceedingly gay, roph

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? 

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

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

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:<