For example if: \n2+2  =  1+3\nThen:\nGod  =  Love\nAnd\nLove =  God\nDo you agree?
202869
unconditional, agape love would constitute God, yes.  however, in english we only have one word for love.  we use it to describe the relationship between too many things.  "i love fruit salad" is one example.  yes, fruit salad may be good, but  would you do anything for it?  die?  "greater love does not exist than this: one lays down his life for his friend."  we need to examine what we are calling "love".  1 corinthians 13 gives a complete definition of true love.  this list also can be used to define God and His characteristics.  therefore, yes i do agree, love is God, God is love.  for without God, can anyone truly love?
674335
certainly\n\n\ndx/dz= dx/du * du/dz and so generallay\n\ndx/dz = dx/du*du/dv........................./dz
79155
"+" is called "plus."  2+2=4.\n"-" is called "minus."  4-2=2.\n"*" is called "times." 4*4=16.\n\nGot it now?
288815
1) Yes\n2) Yes\n3) Yes
379240
Yes it is correct.\n\nYou can always move a term from one side of the equation to the other side of the equation as long as you change its sign. This is called transposition.
462561
X O X O X O X O X O X O X O X O X O X O X O X O X O X O\n\noh yeah and X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X\n\nNow if that isn't a lot of love I don't know what is :0)
67894
How about "Math -  Does it really add up?"
286382
substitution\n-3=-2 which would be false.\nSo in that case it would be a inconsistent system.\nno solution
118309
when the answer is "greater then" or "less then" use a dotted line\nwhen the answer is "greater then or equal to" or "less then or equal to" use a solid line.\ni don't know why.\nthats just what we do.
76562
Mathematicians have proven that, in general, 1 + 1 = 2. It took them awhile to do it, but they succeeded. Unless the time truly comes when there is a need to ignore this generalisation, this assumption made is as good as any other axioms ever declared by the wise logicians.
664297
2[w+ {2w+8}]= 64\n3w+8 = 32\nw= 8 \nyour are right
599797
Grappling with the axiomatic logic is not suitable for most of\nus and these readings are difficult.  Let me attempt an inadequate simplifi-\ncation.  I would say a number "belongs to a concept" and is an\nextension of that concept and then statements about numbers correspond to\n"identities of concept".\n\nIn the sense of counting, one apple and one orange represent identical\nconcepts even if apples are not oranges, so we write 1 = 1.  Now 1 + 1 or\nfor that matter 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 (repeating)  are represented in the\nsense of identity by other symbols which, if arabic numerals are used, we\nwrite as 2 or 5.  The symbols are just compact notation for representation\nof an identical "concept".  I would say that number is not anything\nphysical nor is it subjective.  This may not be very satisfying but deep\nphilosophical questions about numbers may always remain unanswered in very\nsatisfying ways.
518094
To a mathematician 1 + 1=2 right. If I were using that equation in another context it could be interpreted differently. In a nutshell the quote is saying that people sometimes interpet the same one thing differently.
219083
Let's see:\n\nI choose 3, then 3+3=6, 6+4=10, 10*1/2=5, 5-3=2!\n\ngood!
339071
If 3 is your favorite but you want a change, try 12 or 21. Since 1 + 2 = 3.
380193
multiplication\n\n\nDoug
331191
Math--there is no ambiguity. You are either right or wrong. Also I am good at it.