At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Well, this is my question how is it possible for 1+1 to =3??
I have pondered over this again and again, and then finnally it came to me. Something so simple but nonetheless true. I'm sure others will disagree with me, but that is a matter of opinion, not fact.
Here is what i've come up with...
1MUM + 1DAD= 1Baby +1MUM + 1DAD Thus: 1+1=3 tell me what you want but factually it works. You put 2 people together and you can come out with 3. Hummm, i wonder what kind of arguments people will have against my theory??
Well, i welcome any enlightenment, or comments (good /bad) or even suggestions, or other ideas. I"m no math wiz kid, but im pretty sure that what i've stated counts for something.
This discussion reminds me of that old joke about how single-cell organisms like amoebas are the smartest creatures on earth, because only they can multiply by dividing!
Unfortunately, what you have said counts for nothing. Neither has it anything to do with math. If you want to prove a math statement you have to stick to the math methods; in this case - to axioms and theorems of the number theory. Your "conclusion" therefore is of no interest to mathematicians for sure. Besides, your particular equation is wrong. It should be 23+23=46. 23 chromosomes from mother and 23 chromosomes from father equals 46 chromosomes in a baby. 23*2 + 23*2 = 2*46 - for twins. Try to disprove my logic here! From physics point of view (in case you turn your eyes to physics), your "logic" is also wrong, because your system (mom and dad) is not closed, i.e. there is an exchange of energy and matter with the environment, meaning all bets are off . To summarize, you probably confuse yourself with a semantic trick: understanding that it takes mom (1) and dad (1) to give birth to a baby (1) or many babies does not mean that you have to sum them all up before and after and then say the numbers are equal. Hope this helps, h.
Nestorian agrees: I agree you are right. Still, I know that when two people come together, there can be any number of out comes, so what kind of question it that?? Philosophy??
What question? If you try to word it, I will try to guess who can answer it.
What question? If you try to word it, I will try to guess who can answer it.
The question what kind of disapline would the equation fit under, 1+1=3. I know that the rules of mathmatics do not apply and maybe I'm cracked. But A person is capable of seeing things in different ways, and interpreting those by the means they see fit, or rather reason to fit. I"m thinking that's a Philisophical thing.
If truth be told, the equation i wrote, needs more information to make it any thing but a simple expression of one's perception of a given event, situation.
Can we break it down, to make sense, and fit?? I realise this may sound absolutly dumb and a wast of time, but what if it could be of value. Can we find a way to make it systematicaly sifnigicant??
I'll have to read some books but i'm thinking it's a very mesy buisness.
The question what kind of disapline would the equation fit under, 1+1=3. I know that the rules of mathmatics do not apply and maybe I'm cracked. But A person is capable of seeing things in different ways, and interpreting those by the means they see fit, or rather reason to fit. I"m thinking that's a Philisophical thing.
There are things that are just not a matter of interpretation. As a matter of fact, almost nothing in math, science, philosophy is up for interpretation. There is a formal proof that 1+1=2, which uses a set of axioms and is based on many theorems of the number theory. You have no idea how many people and how many generations of mathematicians sacrificed/dedicated their lives and lost their minds getting mathematics and its language to where it is today. It would be so naive to hijack a random statement and "re-interpret" it.
There are things that are just not a matter of interpretation. As a matter of fact, almost nothing in math, science, philosophy is up for interpretation. There is a formal proof that 1+1=2, which uses a set of axioms and is based on many theorems of the number theory. You have no idea how many people and how many generations of mathematicians sacrificed/dedicated their lives and lost their minds getting mathematics and its language to where it is today. It would be so naive to hijack a random statement and "re-interpret" it.
That is true, and I may not know them, but i do respect them. However, I don't think math can explain, in a logical way, How a person loves another, or why some one hates another. There has to be a bridge, and this equation may be a start to that, but we'd never probly see it. Some one else generations later may.
Those things exist and math can not explain them, except if you bring in neuro chemical equations and how differnt elements/chemicals react with biological components/ beings. But even then, thats a Psychological thing, and biochemistry, not math. We need to be able to apply the nessessary tools to the nessessary situation. "Everything in it's place."-Unknown.
Im not 100% sure what the the theory of relativity is, but i imagine it must apply to this in some way. I supose I could look there eh?? But it doens't apply to math does it?
. To summarize, you probably confuse yourself with a semantic trick: understanding that it takes mom (1) and dad (1) to give birth to a baby (1) or many babies does not mean that you have to sum them all up before and after and then say the numbers are equal. Hope this helps, h.
Linear Mode
