Is there a math formula that can prove that it doesn't?
128677
that math formula that proves it is SO WRONG! i just talked about this with someone, if you look at the formula it gets messed up like halfway through.\n\ndo we need to break this down?\none fish + one fish = 2 fish
233860
There's no way to prove or disprove something like that.
542112
just work backwards to find out the logic in it. That way you'll get why it works that way it did
217227
Properties of mathematics makes it work. I'm not sure exactly what it has you do but essentially it does this.\n\nIf your number is X. You add 5 to it then subtract 5 from it and you get your original number. Of course the nice ones hide the fact that your doing exactly this. \n\nDavid Copperfield did a TV bit once where he had a 3X3 square. You start out at any square you want and move according to his directions. After each move he took away a square. In the end you always end up on one square. That was cool. Anyone heard of it?
522804
Yes, but they remain equal only if you differentiate both sides with respect to the same variable(in this case x). You can never only do one side.
365683
yep, that would be false\n\n\ncongruent parts of congruent triangles are congruent.
36061
no it doesn't not as far as I know
364737
no,...\nit depends upon the given label or element that accompanies the numeral. the example you gave equals to four. 2 cars plus 2 trucks make 4 vehicles. unfortunately this does not happen all the time. okay what do i mean,,, in chemistry, there is a certain concept wherein the addition of an element to another may cause deduction and not addition. example 2 negative ions added to 2 positive ions result to 0. \n\nfor every rule, there exists a contradicting exemption....
71587
Umm....  there is no way to disprove it....thats why its called a law, not a theorem.  Also, you need to be more specific.  What ways?  Whats experiments?  \n\nAsk again with  more details and I will help you
377883
it is possible but unlikely
509188
an exception.some thing not consistent with an assumed  theory/relationship-in maths, a point of failure of the equation
14204
yes. it is divisible only by 1 and itself
81889
Almost all "tricks" that show 1+1 not equal to 2 generally involve a division by 0 someplace.  This is also the generally way to "show" that 1 = 2, or other such things.  For example the most common "proof" of 1 = 2 that I have seen goes like:\n\na = b\na^2 = a*b\na^2-b^2 = a*b-b^2\n(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)\n(a+b) = b\na+a = a\n2a = a\n2 = 1\n\nIf you follow carefully you will see where I divided by 0.
498016
The only case that I could think of that A is not equal to B where AC=BC is when C=0.  Other than that A must equal B for the expression to be valid
519915
No, it would have to be the square of something like ax+b, whose square is a^2x+2abx+b^2.  You would have to have a=1 or -1 and b=i or -i, but then 2ab would be imaginary, and not -2.
604436
actually, it can! If you understand physics, the website below has proof. (but I dont know how hard you threw it.)
218186
It takes only one example to prove the statement to be false, and I provided one:\n\n(Now, while you may never naturally encounter the set of numbers I used, the definitions of mean and median fit, so the statement is false.)