Is it true, to proove 1+1=2 requires 357 pages?
471450
weezy is on the right track, that glow1989 is on the right track.  For everyone who thinks that writing 1+1=2 is so obvious that it constitutes a self-contained proof of itself(!)... if you undertake a serious study of mathematical proof, you might find that 357 pages is a good length for a quick introduction to the ideas that are involved in considering questions in this area.  Of course, I am talking about actually UNDERSTANDING something - very different to simply passing an exam, regardless of the 'level' of maths you are enrolled in.\n\nYes, as you mentioned, this is a hard question.  'Proving' that 1+1=2 is not as simple as it sounds, because of the inherent question of what we mean by 'prove'.  You might have noticed that some proofs you have used depend on other proofs, which in turn depend on other proofs, ... which ultimately rest on a handful of axioms.  It is the nature of operations that are allowed by any axiomatic system, that determine the characteristics of mathematical problems that can be said to be SOLVABLE.  It is no small task to understand the axioms that underlie our systems of mathematics.  For example, maths students learn: that division by zero is undefined; that any object raised to a null power is equal to unity; some differences between rational and irrational numbers; what we mean when we consider objects to exist in 'sets'; and so on.  Those who consider themselves to be excellent students are usually able to list these rules in rapid-fire style.  But if we are asked to 'prove' why those rules are the way they are, the questions start to seem fuzzy, and you typically run out of convenient formulas to rely on.  You could easily write 357 pages just to explain what you actually MEAN by the numbers 1 or 2, without worrying about the definition of the addition operation!  As usual, people might do better to stop and consider what the question is asking before booting in a smug answer.\n\nLook into Hilbert's Problem (David Hilbert - German mathematician), which was a more workable and compact form of a proposal by Russell and Whitehead to formalise mathematics on a general basis, according to well-established axioms and procedures.\n\nOther notable mathematicians to work in this area were Alan Turing, Alonzo Church (look for Church's Lambda Calculus), Emil Post, and the brilliant Kurt Gödel.  In more recent decades, look for Gandy (1988) and of course many others.\n\nLol, molawby is spot-on.  I wish he'd posted b4 me... would've saved me a bit of typing.  If all you need to do is learn to sing the right song, to pass your exams and get the job that stipulates that you need to have completed such-and-such a course, then you don't have to worry about any of this.  Of course, that doesn't mean you have to dismiss it either.  But if you are chasing a deeper understanding, it probably does take the 20 yrs, and you won't necessarily get paid for it, heheheh.\n\nFor bedside reading, I suggest Roger Penrose etc...
514095
32\n\nsorry bout the .pdf link. it's the first one i found ;p
820084
Steve G has the best answer so far.\n\nThe answer is "not necessarily".\n\nIn binary (ie base 2) 1+1 = 10\n\nHowever in binary 10 represents two, so although you don't write it with a '2' symbol it still means two units of something.  But if your computer counter was very small and could only deal with a single bit, then 1+1 would show up as 0.\n\nIn real world conditions (ie away from the special rules of mathematics) think about what happens when two rain drops meet.  You might think of that as 1+1 but you still have 1 (heavier) raindrop.\n\nThe point is that addition always works the same way in mathematics and 1 + 1 will always result in value 2 however it may be written in different ways.  BUT mathematical addition may not accurately reflect events in the real world that look like addition.\n\nAnother example would be putting two elementary particles in a container.  If the particles happen to be a positron and an electron, then you end up with ZERO elementary particles and a burst of energy.
492700
These days, with the online submissions and everything, length isn't as important.  Traditionally, back in the old paper days, entry-level and those with not much experience kept their resume to one page.  Those with quite a bit of experience and therefore much to write about would go for 2 pages.\n\nNow, if you have enough *substance* to go for 2 pages, that's fine.  If it's just fluff, then stay at a page.\n\nYou want to print out 2 separate sheets because many times employers will see the first page and think that is it, so they'll miss your second page if it's on the other side, especially if the paper is thick and you can't see through it.
311006
One can have only one day with exactly 129 books, because\n600-2*129 = 342 < 365-2\nand each day at least a book was sold.
921908
1\n\njust do a little bit of trial you will see that the smaller number you use it nears 1.
191250
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.
523701
If you add the numbers together then they equal an even number.   1 1  1+1=2
1130664
1+1 = 10 if you are counting in binary.\n\n1+1=0 with 1 carry over if you are counting in urinary.\n\nanything bigger than binary = 2.\n\n1+1 = 1 if you are talking logical (OR) also.\n\n1+1 = 2 at first then it becomes 3 then 2 again if you are talking about marriage and divorce.
847277
42\n\nBy the way, did you know that books come in different sizes?  They can be printed with different fonts?\nThey can have different line spacing and margins?
431782
SORRY DUDE, COME ON NOW, YOU ARE OVER DOING IT WITH YOUR QUESTIONS THE RULE IS ONE PER DAY\n\n#1 QUESTION = 1.69M
57970
does 1+1=2 is actually a really good question because there is really no way of proving it. Because numbers are abstract(they are not real) they represent other things. But if you look at the equation 1+1=2 you will actually see that by itself it makes no sense because one plus one does not equal a two symbol. so without subsituiting the number symbols for actual things the equation is irrational and cannot be proven.
212066
30 mins = 3/4 page therefore you take 10 mins for every 1/4 of the page .. so one page = 40 mins ... so 6 pages = 6 x 40 = 240 mins = 4hr\n\n*edit*\n\nif you want to use fractions to find of one page do 30 x 4/3
867598
a paragraph or double spaced 1 page.
599876
no can do it equals 2
1144319
This requires a 500 page book to explain.  Since there are many fine books that do exactly that, you should go to amazon.com and buy one.
981541
No, it follows from 1+1 = 2\n\nWhich follows from 1+0 = 1\n\nBut that can be considered an amazing "fact".  In reality, it's an axiom - a definition.  One of the only true defintions that form the basis of mathematics.