The Instigator
Logician1234
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
729AO
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

1 plus 1 equals 2

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 405 times Debate No: 89075
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Logician1234

Pro

Resolved: 1+1=2.
729AO

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=3
Debate Round No. 1
Logician1234

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.
729AO

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=3
Debate Round No. 2
Logician1234

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.
729AO

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.
Debate Round No. 3
Logician1234

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.
729AO

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.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by c0cksucker911 9 months ago
c0cksucker911
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 1 year ago
Jjjohn
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 1 year ago
vi_spex
1=something

undefined, x is no answer
No votes have been placed for this debate.