Why does 1 + 1 = 2, and why does 1 x 1 = 1?
204654
Actually 2 = 1\n\nOK,\n  if   a = b\nthen a x a = a x b\nthen a x a -bb = a x b -bb\nthen (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)\nthen a+b  = b\nif a = b,  then a+b = b can be written b+b = b\n\nthen 2b = b\n\ntherefore 2 = 1\n\n:)
656277
It is really surprising that there are still people who think they have a PROOF for statements like 1=2, 1=0, etc.\nFirst they should UNDERSTAND what is a PROOF.\n\nPROOF is a sequence of logically correct steps. If ONE of your step is wrong then it is NOT called a proof.\n\nI think these people should go back to Primary schools and LEARN the fundamentals.
58745
You need to start from the definintions of x < y and x > y.\n\nThey probably go like this\nif x < y, then there exists 0 < z such that x+z = y.\nif x > y, then there exists 0 < w such that x = y+w.\n\nPartial proof:\nif x < y, and x = y, then for some z, 0 < z, x+z = y.\nsince you have x = y, too, y + z = y, z = 0. That contradicts 0 < z. Proving the other two parts is similar.\nx+z = y,
123812
In boolean logic, a rule says: A + A = A (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra if you don't believe)\n\nThus if A equals to 1:\n1 + 1 = 1\n2 = 1\n\nNOTE: Wikipedians uses v and inverted v to represents the use of AND and OR logic, I am used to use + and . (multiplication dots), and I think this is the more correct one than wikipedians, since the equation being done here is more in boolean algebra and not only boolean logic
580030
(1+2)/2=3/2\n1+(2/2)=2
429587
just solve it. i think it comes out to -1x=1x\n|x-2| = |x+2| -2\n\n-1x= 3x -2\n-1x= -1x\nsorry if im wrong havent done alegebra in a while :)
282937
It's 0.\nSince x^2>=0, |x^2+1| >=1.\nIf |x^2+1|>=1 and |x^2+1|<=1 both are true,\nthen |x^2+1|=1, which means x=0.\nFinally, anything times 0 is 0.
339096
From the second equation:\n\np/(1+p)=r\np=r(p+1)\np=rp+r\np-rp=r\np(1-r)=r\np=r/(1-r) which is not equivalent to p=(r-1)/r
398126
Ratios 1:2 meaning 1/1=2/2
195569
1=0 when reference to derivatives in calculus or when in reference to places numbers are from 0 - 9 \nthen they are repeated. etc 1_0 1_1 1_2 .. you get the idea. \n Any way first place is  = 0
101774
Yes, there is a general form\n\nLet A the first number and B the second\n\nTo have A+B = AxB the general form\n\nA=1+x and B=1+1/x   where x is any number else zero\n\nx=1 A=2 B=2       2x2 = 2+2\nx=2 A=3 B=1.5     3x1.5 = 3+1.5\nx=3 A=4 B=1.333.. 4x1.333 = 4+1.3333\nx=4 A=5 B=1.25    5x1.25 = 5+1.25\n\nand so on\n\nThe proove\n\nA=1+x  B=1+1/x\n\nA+B = (1+x) + (1+1/x) = 2 + x + 1/x\nAB = (1+x) (1+1/x) = 1 + x + 1/x +1 = 2 + x +1/x\n\nSO A+B =AB
89827
1+1=1\n\nOne pile of rocks and another pile of rocks can be combined to make what is just one, albeit larger, single pile of rocks.
541703
well....\n\n1 F F 9\n\n...+ F 7\n\n9+7 is 16...so, 0 in the first place.\ncarry 1.....\n\nF + F + 1 = 15 +15 +1 = F (carry a 1)\n\nF+1 = 0 (carry 1)\n\n1 + 1 = 2\n\nso:    2 0 F 0
638478
x*0=x*(0+0)=\nx*0+x*0.\nThe first equality is because 0 is an additive identity;\nthe second from the distributive law.\nNow add the negative of x*0 to both sides:\n0=x*0+(-)x*0=\n(x*0+x*0)+(-)x*0=\nx*0+(x*0+(-)x*0)\n=x*0 +0=\nx*0.\nThe first equality is from the definition of a negative;\nthe second from the previous result; the third from\nassociativity; the fourth from the definition of a negative;\nthe fifth from the fact that 0 is an additive identity.
569066
4x + (x + 2) ....... 4x + 2 is 4 times a number plus 2 and it's incorrect
446925
i know how it's done. in the theorm, every number is one higher than stated (ex. 1=2, 2=3, 3=4, etc) since it's 2+2, it's actually 3+3. and if 3+3 =6, and 6=7, then the resulting equation is 2+2=7
86787
I can explain this with simple mathematics..\nLet the number u choose be 'x'.\nNow double the'x' and adding 12 gives us:\n2x + 12.\nDividing this expression by 2 gives us:\nx + 6.\nSubect the no. u thought i.e. 'x' from this and what u get is 6.\nAm I correct Ma'am?