All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

# 1 plus 1 equals 2

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 4/1/2016 Category: Philosophy Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 89075
Debate Rounds (4)

 Pro Resolved: 1+1=2.Report this Argument Con Let x=1 and y=2, then x+y=3 Multiply each side by 2x-3: (2x-3)(x+y)=(2x-3)(3) 2x^2-3x+2xy-3y=6x-9 Add 3y-3x to both sides: 2x^2-3x+2xy-3y+(3y-3x)=6x-9+(3y-3x) 2x^2-6x+2xy=3x+3y-9 Factor both sides: 2x(x+y-3)=3(x+y-3) Divide both sides by (x+y-3): 2x=3 But then: x+x=3 with x=1 Therefore: 1+1=3Report this Argument Pro There are a number of problems with your proof. Firstly,at the beginning of your proof, you accept that 1+2=3 is a given. If 1+2 = 3, how could 1+1=3? The only answer to this question is that 1 is interchangible with 2, and this is clearly not the case.Report this Argument Con Well, if 1+1=3 and 1+2=3 can't both be true then; 3^0=1 and 4^0=1 can't both be true using your argument. Just like any number raised to the 0 is 1, 1 plus any number is 3. I can prove this like this; 1+1=3 So, 1=3-1 1=2 1-2=2-2 -1=0 (-1)-15=(0)-15 You can change the -15 to something else for the rest of the proofs 15=0 15-15=0-15 0=-15 0+1=-15+1 1=-14 1+17=-14+17 Therefore, 1+17=3Report this Argument Pro First of all, in argument 1, you divided by (x+y-3). If you substitute the values x = 1, y = 2, which are accepted as givens, then you'll see that x+y-3 = 1+2-3, which equals zero. Dividing by zero is not allowed. Second, your second article is terribly constructed, irrelevant and, mathematically incorrect. Why? Firstly, you assume 1+1=3, which you haven't proven, see earlier in my argument (dividing by zero). Secondly, please clarify your proof, as it seems to me that you went from -1 = 0 to 15 = 0, and I can't figure out how you got there. Thirdly, I can prove that 4^0 = 3^0 using mathematical fact.Report this Argument Con Okay, you proved that 1+1 does not equal 3. But you proved that 1+1 is undefined; since dividing by 0 is undefined. And, if 3^0=1 and 4^0=1 is correct that your 2nd round argument is invalid.Report this Argument Pro How is my second round argument invalid? And how did you get from -1 = 0 to 15 = 0? I close by saying this: My opponent has not offered a single sound mathematical proof. Any sensible person can see he is wrong.Report this Argument Con Okay, you've proved that my argument from round 2 since the end of my round 1 argument is invalid. But, when I divided by 0 during my round 1 argument I made a valid mathematical proof that 1+1 is undefined-not 2.Report this Argument
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by c0cksucker911 2 years ago
It could go both ways, using set theory I could make a system where 1+1=3 or 1+1=2. You never specified what set you were using.
Posted by Jjjohn 2 years ago
con's second proof contained its own contradiction. he defined 1 + 1 = 3, got a conclusion of 1 + 17 = 3, which implies 1 =17. since he admitted that "You can change the -15 to something else for the rest of the proofs", then the same proof could be used to show 1 = any number, except 1 =1. Con violated the law of identity.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
1=something