1 + 1 = ?
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
That depends on your definitions of "1", "2", "+", and "=".
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
In a field of characteristic 2 (such as Z/2), 1+1=0.
Code: Select all
_=0,w=1,(*t)(int,int);a()??<char*p="[gd\
~/d~/\\b\x7F\177l*~/~djal{x}h!\005h";(++w
<033)?(putchar((*t)(w??(p:>,w?_:0XD)),a()
):0;%>O(x,l)??<_='['/7;{return!(x%(_11))
?x??'l:x^(1+ ++l);}??>main(){t=&O;w=a();}
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
Under modulo arithmetic (mod 2) , 1 + 1 = 0...
I'm not great on math theory, but that may be equivilent to the above statement...
I'm not great on math theory, but that may be equivilent to the above statement...
 heyitsguay
 Posts: 118
 Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:21 am UTC
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
1+1=100010101 base i, but that's not unique.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
I think the correct answer is:
"Not in the usual sense!"
"Not in the usual sense!"
 Cleverbeans
 Posts: 1378
 Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
1+1 can equal absolutely anything if you're willing to change the meaning of "equals" based on context. It might seem artificial at first however different flavors of equality exists for the natural, rational, real and complex numbers for "normal" math. Here is a link to the wikipedia article on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."  Abraham Lincoln
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
It is. As I pointed out, Z/2 (the integers mod 2) is a field of characteristic 2.jazznaz wrote:Under modulo arithmetic (mod 2) , 1 + 1 = 0...
I'm not great on math theory, but that may be equivilent to the above statement...
Code: Select all
_=0,w=1,(*t)(int,int);a()??<char*p="[gd\
~/d~/\\b\x7F\177l*~/~djal{x}h!\005h";(++w
<033)?(putchar((*t)(w??(p:>,w?_:0XD)),a()
):0;%>O(x,l)??<_='['/7;{return!(x%(_11))
?x??'l:x^(1+ ++l);}??>main(){t=&O;w=a();}
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
It's worth noting that in all of these cases, you still have 1+1=2. It's just that it also happens to be true that, modulo 2, 2=0.
A case where you take 1+1 to be something other than 2 is when you redefine the addition operation as a +' b=max(a,b) and multiplication as a *' b=a+b.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's been a thread about exactly this question, but I can't find it.
A case where you take 1+1 to be something other than 2 is when you redefine the addition operation as a +' b=max(a,b) and multiplication as a *' b=a+b.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's been a thread about exactly this question, but I can't find it.
Jerry Bona wrote:The Axiom of Choice is obviously true; the Well Ordering Principle is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?
 Sir_Elderberry
 Posts: 4206
 Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
 Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
 Contact:
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
Basically, if you see someone asserting that "1+1=2", there's a few possibilities
1) They've given you a severalline proof that seems to "prove it", especially if the first line is "a=b". Chances are they divided by zero somewhere in there but hid it by dividing by "ab", or something similar.
2) They know some highlevel mathematics and are redefining the terms "one" "plus" "equals" or "two".
1) They've given you a severalline proof that seems to "prove it", especially if the first line is "a=b". Chances are they divided by zero somewhere in there but hid it by dividing by "ab", or something similar.
2) They know some highlevel mathematics and are redefining the terms "one" "plus" "equals" or "two".
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com  Science and the Concerned Voter
Well. You heard him.
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.
I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.
Well. You heard him.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2, as the old joke goes.

 Posts: 658
 Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:04 am UTC
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
how about 1 + 1 = 10
 skeptical scientist
 closedminded spiritualist
 Posts: 6142
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
 Location: San Francisco
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
keeperofdakeys wrote:how about 1 + 1 = 10
That's just a different representation of 2.
It's all a matter of definitions, which is to say, semantics. For any reasonable definition of 2, 2=1+1, if it even makes sense to define 2 in your
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
 You, sir, name?
 Posts: 6983
 Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
 Location: Chako Paul City
 Contact:
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
jazznaz wrote:Under modulo arithmetic (mod 2) , 1 + 1 = 0...
I'm not great on math theory, but that may be equivilent to the above statement...
It doesn't change the equivalence though:
1 + 1 = 0 mod 2
2 = 0 mod 2
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

 Posts: 12
 Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:43 pm UTC
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
I believe 1+1 was proven to be 2 around 1900 by Bertrand Russel.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
Charles Seife wrote:Dividing by zero...allows you to prove, mathematically, anything in the universe. You can prove that 1+1=42, and from there you can prove that J. Edgar Hoover is a space alien, that William Shakespeare came from Uzbekistan, or even that the sky is polkadotted. (See appendix A for a proof that Winston Churchill was a carrot.)
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
keeperofdakeys wrote:how about 1 + 1 = 10
Thats correct, thought only in base 2.
Correct me if im wronge but if you defined a vector space of all real numbers and defined your axioms could you not have 1+1 = anything you want. as long as 1+(1) = 0 ?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own"
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
Well no. Vector addition has to be well defined, which means that adding two vectors should produce the same result each time.
Code: Select all
_=0,w=1,(*t)(int,int);a()??<char*p="[gd\
~/d~/\\b\x7F\177l*~/~djal{x}h!\005h";(++w
<033)?(putchar((*t)(w??(p:>,w?_:0XD)),a()
):0;%>O(x,l)??<_='['/7;{return!(x%(_11))
?x??'l:x^(1+ ++l);}??>main(){t=&O;w=a();}
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
If the additive structure of your vector space is going to have very little to do with the usual additive structure on the reals, then you might as well ditch the underlying set and call the elements of your vector space something altogether different.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
Fimbulfamb wrote:I believe 1+1 was proven to be 2 around 1900 by Bertrand Russel.
It was. I have a picture of his original work. Its a halarious paper long proof.
Check out my web interzones powered by Web 3.0 technology running on Mozzarella Foxfire:
Spoiler:
 Sir_Elderberry
 Posts: 4206
 Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
 Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
 Contact:
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
A_of_s_t wrote:Fimbulfamb wrote:I believe 1+1 was proven to be 2 around 1900 by Bertrand Russel.
It was. I have a picture of his original work. Its a halarious paper long proof.
He also spent a few hundred pages just laying the groundwork for it.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com  Science and the Concerned Voter
Well. You heard him.
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.
I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.
Well. You heard him.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
It can get proved assuming the Peano Postulates. The real quick and dirty of the proof is that you define addition so that a+b = (a+c)' when b = c' where x' is the successor to x (and so is an element of the naturals so long as x is), and then let 1' = 2. So,a = b = 1 implies 1 + 1 = 1' = 2. There are some key details missing, but that sketch should be good enough that someone with a list of the Peano Postulates should be able to make a real proof.
By the way, google Principia Mathematica and 1 + 1 = 2 (I went looking for the original work). Someone asked for a proof that 1 + 1 = 2 on Yahoo questions and at least a dozen people said, "If you have 1 something and someone gives you another something, then you have two somethings," before calling the guy an idiot for not being able to come up with their obviously correct proof.
By the way, google Principia Mathematica and 1 + 1 = 2 (I went looking for the original work). Someone asked for a proof that 1 + 1 = 2 on Yahoo questions and at least a dozen people said, "If you have 1 something and someone gives you another something, then you have two somethings," before calling the guy an idiot for not being able to come up with their obviously correct proof.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
Sir_Elderberry wrote:A_of_s_t wrote:Fimbulfamb wrote:I believe 1+1 was proven to be 2 around 1900 by Bertrand Russel.
It was. I have a picture of his original work. Its a halarious paper long proof.
He also spent a few hundred pages just laying the groundwork for it.
Sort of. Russell & Whitehead were attempting to formalize mathematics, from the ground up, using symbolic logic (and basic set theory). Their plan was flawed, but they didn't know about Godel's theorems*. Their proof for 1+1=2 isn't really that long, but they did have to formalize a fair amount of more fundamental material before they got to 1+1=2. So the 1+1=2 result was just an incidental result they derived for fun. The fact that it occurs after a few hundred pages illustrates that this "basic mathematical fact" isn't as basic as the lay person may think.
Disclaimer: I haven't read Russell & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica. And I don't intend to in a hurry. Reading page after page of symbolic logic makes my brain turn to jelly.
[*] But if it wasn't for Principia Mathematica, Godel may have not discovered his theorems. Although Godel wasn't the only one looking into these issues: there were also people like Church, Tarski & Turing looking at the limitations of formal mathematical procedures.
 Sir_Elderberry
 Posts: 4206
 Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
 Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
 Contact:
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
Well, yes, I know that he wasn't out to just prove 1+1=2. But nonetheless, the proof of that proposition was only possible after a volume or two of logic and formalization. Pretty hardcore stuff.
If anyone's interested in this, everything I know about this I learned from GEB.
If anyone's interested in this, everything I know about this I learned from GEB.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com  Science and the Concerned Voter
Well. You heard him.
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.
I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.
Well. You heard him.
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26765
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
PM 2Ring wrote:So the 1+1=2 result was just an incidental result they derived for fun. The fact that it occurs after a few hundred pages illustrates that this "basic mathematical fact" isn't as basic as the lay person may think.
Well, what they really proved was the fact that logic and a few basic axioms of set theory result in a structure that contains a set corresponding to how everyone had already been treating integers for thousands of years.
The axiomatization and formalization of mathematics wasn't so much an effort to prove facts everyone already knew, as a way to provide firm logical groundwork consistent with those facts, from which to prove other things that people didn't already know, but which fit with what they did.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
I'm amazed that no one has put this, maybe out of fear, but i'll risk it.
Obviously,
1+1=1.99999...8
from a previously (over)discussed theorem.
Obviously,
1+1=1.99999...8
from a previously (over)discussed theorem.
Philwelch wrote:Would a prostitution enthusiast be a buysexual?
...sorry.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
codyhotel wrote:I'm amazed that no one has put this, maybe out of fear, but i'll risk it.
Obviously,
1+1=1.99999...8
from a previously (over)discussed theorem.
No. 2=1.999....
 Sir_Elderberry
 Posts: 4206
 Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
 Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
 Contact:
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
auteur52 wrote:codyhotel wrote:I'm amazed that no one has put this, maybe out of fear, but i'll risk it.
Obviously,
1+1=1.99999...8
from a previously (over)discussed theorem.
No. 2=1.999....
Considering that 1.9999....8 doesn't make any sense in any notation I'm aware of, yes.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com  Science and the Concerned Voter
Well. You heard him.
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.
I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.
Well. You heard him.
 Deep Fried Pickles
 Posts: 14
 Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:42 pm UTC
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
I have a friend who can use circular logic to prove that 1 + 1 is 0
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
Deep Fried Pickles wrote:I have a friend who can use circular logic to prove that 1 + 1 is 0
Off topic, but he actually proved that 1 + 1 = 0/0

 Posts: 5
 Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:05 pm UTC
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
(xx)(x+x) = x²x²
(xx)(x+x) = x*(xx)
x+x = x
2x = x
2 = 1
1+1 = 1, 2, 3, or 4.
1+1 is clearly ambiguous.
spot the error haha
another one:
(1) * (1)= 1
log (1 * 1) = log 1
log 1 + log 1 = log 1 = 0
log 1 =  (log 1)
(log 1)/(log 1) = 1
1 = 1
1+1 = 0, +2
(xx)(x+x) = x*(xx)
x+x = x
2x = x
2 = 1
1+1 = 1, 2, 3, or 4.
1+1 is clearly ambiguous.
spot the error haha
another one:
(1) * (1)= 1
log (1 * 1) = log 1
log 1 + log 1 = log 1 = 0
log 1 =  (log 1)
(log 1)/(log 1) = 1
1 = 1
1+1 = 0, +2
 Sir_Elderberry
 Posts: 4206
 Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
 Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
 Contact:
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
Divisions by zero.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com  Science and the Concerned Voter
Well. You heard him.
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.
I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.
Well. You heard him.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
xkcdaddict wrote:(1) * (1)= 1
log (1 * 1) = log 1
log 1 + log 1 = log 1 = 0
log 1 =  (log 1)
(log 1)/(log 1) = 1
1 = 1
1+1 = 0, +2
I like this one. I haven't seen it before.
The trick is it is NOT true that log xy = log x + log y for all real x and y. Namely, log 1 = pi * i, so log (1)(1) = 0 /= pi * i + pi * i. The identity does seem to hold when working in mod 2pi arithmetic.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
TacTics wrote:The trick is it is NOT true that log xy = log x + log y for all real x and y.
Sure it is. It's well known that log 1 = 2pi*i, among other things. There's nothing wrong with the rule that log xy = log x + log y, so long as you don't assume that the result is the only value log xy equals.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
If you don't treat your functions like functions the Mathematical Fairy stabs you to death with set squares.Buttons wrote:TacTics wrote:The trick is it is NOT true that log xy = log x + log y for all real x and y.
Sure it is. It's well known that log 1 = 2pi*i, among other things. There's nothing wrong with the rule that log xy = log x + log y, so long as you don't assume that the result is the only value log xy equals.
 Indigo is a lie.
Which idiot decided that websites can't go within 4cm of the edge of the screen?
There should be a null word, for the question "Is anybody there?" and to see if microphones are on.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
Macbi wrote:If you don't treat your functions like functions the Mathematical Fairy stabs you to death with set squares.Buttons wrote:Sure it is. It's well known that log 1 = 2pi*i, among other things. There's nothing wrong with the rule that log xy = log x + log y, so long as you don't assume that the result is the only value log xy equals.
Thank you Macbi!
This is the math forum, not the physics forum. Functions are singlevalued. Always. If you need to choose bewteen two alternative "branches", then pick on and be done with it!
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
You'd rather throw out the rule log xy = log x + log y than accept that e^{x} is not injective? Inverses of noninjective functions are multivalued. There's nothing physicsy about that.
I'm all for narrowing the range in a given situation, of course. But I would hardly say that log x = 2pi*i "has no solutions" in general.
I'm all for narrowing the range in a given situation, of course. But I would hardly say that log x = 2pi*i "has no solutions" in general.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
Buttons wrote:You'd rather throw out the rule log xy = log x + log y than accept that e^{x} is not injective? Inverses of noninjective functions are multivalued. There's nothing physicsy about that.
I'm just saying that a "multivalued" function isn't a function. It's a relation or something else, but I'd rather give up the log xy = log x + log y rule than screw around with multivalued functions. Both result in the same answer, but one has a strong formal foundation and the other is just lazy mathematicians playing looseandfast with notation.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
[imath]e^z[/imath] is a continuous homomorphism from the additive group [imath]\mathbb{C}[/imath] to the multiplicative group [imath]\mathbb{C}^{*}[/imath] with kernel the integer multiples of [imath]2 \pi i[/imath], hence restricts to an isomorphism
[math]\mathbb{C}/2 \pi i \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{C}^{*}.[/math]
There's nothing mysterious about this. The preimage of any element of [imath]\mathbb{C}^{*}[/imath] is a coset of the kernel like it always is, and this is perfectly rigorous; mathematicians play around with preimages all the time.
[math]\mathbb{C}/2 \pi i \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{C}^{*}.[/math]
There's nothing mysterious about this. The preimage of any element of [imath]\mathbb{C}^{*}[/imath] is a coset of the kernel like it always is, and this is perfectly rigorous; mathematicians play around with preimages all the time.
Re: 1 + 1 = ?
TacTics wrote:Macbi wrote:If you don't treat your functions like functions the Mathematical Fairy stabs you to death with set squares.Buttons wrote:Sure it is. It's well known that log 1 = 2pi*i, among other things. There's nothing wrong with the rule that log xy = log x + log y, so long as you don't assume that the result is the only value log xy equals.
Thank you Macbi!
This is the math forum, not the physics forum. Functions are singlevalued. Always. If you need to choose bewteen two alternative "branches", then pick on and be done with it!
Functions may be singlevalued, but it's perfectly valid for the codomain to be a set of equivalence classes, rather than a single value. Of course, you've then got to use the members of those sets appropriately, but if you're prepared to do the pedantry to start the process, you've probably got the skills to pull it off.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests