All Big Issues
The Instigator
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points

# One equals to two, 1=2

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1

Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who used the most reliable sources?
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 1/15/2008 Category: Science Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period Viewed: 1,882 times Debate No: 1808
Debate Rounds (5)

9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
I wouldn't teach it to anybody. For all the good it does to win the debate it is admittedly completely worthless. If you accept 1=2 then anything equals anything.
Posted by keni08 9 years ago
who knew that 1 could equal 2. I say stick with what we teach the kids in kindergarten and let these imaginary numbers equal the number that society has chosen that they should equal. Overall, job well done, for something so simple, this was well over my head.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Sorry, I've made that mistake since in was a kid; it's not a grammar mistake.

Hopefully they read the bulleted stuff. I tried to divide it up a bit. Explain Godel's in one argument, explain the assignment of variables in another, and the use of incoherent math in another.

Padfoot, Mr. Black, you are simply moving the math into the realm of the useful. I specifically contended that this was not a requirement as given. I contended that with 1=2 the math becomes useless and limitless. Limitless math can prove itself valid whereas due to a restriction of Godel's coherent math cannot. I am okay with that. You can't use math which allows 10 pounds = 2 ounces in the real world. But you can allow math which allows 10 = 2, it just isn't useful for anything (unless that 10 is binary).

I categorically did not use a theory; I used a theorem. The difference is a theory is a model to describe things in the real world (theories would require coherent math). A theorem is actually proven with a rigorous logical mathematical proof like the one given to show that .999... = 1. Where it actually is absolutely true that incoherent systems can prove their validity and absolutely true that coherent systems cannot. There is no opinion with a theorem or relationship to the real world, it is a mathematical proof that that statement is absolutely true.
Posted by padfo0t 9 years ago
You guys are silly, and bad at grammar:

"That's why 1 is lower then 2."

Correct: That's why 1 is lower THAN 2

I have a prediction... No one, with the exception of myself, has read the entire debate. Your arguements are too long so the people reading these debates vote for what they think is right. I see where the proposition is getting at, but the opposition is correct.

Numbers are assigned/have a numerical value that makes them larger or smaller than the next. It would be rediculous to say that 10 pounds is equal to 2 ounces. Everyone knows this is not true. I agree, math debates are stupid but please do not critisize me in your responce when you see that I have had a debate named '.9999999(etc.) can be proven to have the same value as 1', in which I encourage you both to vote in.

I will not be voting in this debate because you both contradict eachother so well. I agree that 1 does not equal 2, but I also agree that it can be said that '1=2' with the proper wording.

I encourage, for lack of a better term, both of you fine debaters to leave the arguement alone because no one can actually prove that 1=2. If it were so, math would be false, and we don't want little kids to think they are being taught something fake, do we?

Also, don't respond by saying that I have bad grammar because I don't have enough time, not to mention pacience, to deal with either of you. As you can see, I have never misused the words than and then interchangedly. I enjoyed reading your debate.

One suggestion to Tatarize, do not use theories to prove your point. That is why they are called theories. Theories are opinionated, not fact. You can't prove anything in the world unless you know everything and us humans are not at all close to that and I think we will never be.

I would like to comment that Tatarize has a very unique and slightly scary image representing him/herself.

More few words of wisdom: nobody on debate.org is forced to tell the truth. /:
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Trying to hide the fact that you divided by zero isn't worth my time. I'll just assign the two and deal with the consequence. In this case it's the ability to prove that I am right and to point out that my opponent cannot prove that he is right.

Godel and incoherent mathematics. My argument doesn't rely and trying to pull a fast one on the voters. It just assigns the two and says "so what".
Posted by GaryBacon 9 years ago
There actually is an algebraic proof that 1=2. Obviously there is a flaw in the proof, but it is hard to detect. Start with the given equation: a=b
Now multiply both sides by "a" which gives a^2=ab
Subtract b squared from both sides to give a^2-b^2=ab-b^2
The first side of the equation can now be factored using the difference of two perfect squares. The second side can also be factored by removing b and leaving it outside of the parentheses. This gives the following:

(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)

Now dividing both sides of the equation by (a-b) we are left with:

a+b=b

Since the starting equation was a=b, we can substitute on letter for another by virtue of the substitution postulate. In this case, we will substitute the letter b in place of the letter a. This gives:

b+b=b

Which becomes 2b=b

Now divide both sides of the equation by b and we are left with 2=1

Note: I did mention that there is a flaw
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
I can't really vote off of arguments, because neither side was really arguing a fair point. However, I will vote on educational purposes. Tatarize wins because of the educational content, and the complete waste of time the debate was.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
In base 1, no numbers can be expressed. My argument is strictly that because his intro has no relationship to reality I can go ahead and use incoherent forms of mathematics. In all of which, 1 does in fact equal 2.

Being freed from the shackles of coherency, I can prove my position logically as valid (because incoherent systems can prove anything even their own validity). Whereas to argue that 1 does not equal 2 requires a coherent mathematics which despite being useful and correlating to reality cannot actually be proved accurate.

In the end, the only differences are... my mathematics allows every statement to be true and false, whereas his mathematics only allows true statements to be proven true. This, as a consequence of Godel's incompleteness, limits his ability to prove the validity of his system whereas I have no such limitation.

I assign one equal to two, the resulting mathematical system is useless but cannot be proven false and can be proven true. You need limits to be useful. If science could prove everything it would be worthless, it needs to be limited to only proving true things. Faith can prove everything, and faith is thusly worthless and fundamentally incoherent. You can have useful systems or limitless systems. This debate didn't require the former so I'm taking the later.
Posted by Thoreau 9 years ago
Helpful hint: 1 and 2 have no meaning (and therefore can have any meaning) when working in Base 1 (which has no 1's or 2's).

Therefore, in base 1 1=2 because neither means anything and can mean anything, so we can say this and be entirely correct, making it true.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.