# Why is 1 + 1 =2

Post Voting Period

The voting period for this debate has ended.

after 2 votes the winner is...

Mikal

Voting Style: | Open |
Point System: | 7 Point |
||

Started: | 9/6/2013 | Category: | Education | ||

Updated: | 3 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||

Viewed: | 1,014 times | Debate No: | 37430 |

Debate Rounds (1)

Comments (11)

Votes (2)

1 + 1 = 2 because if you have one item and add another item to it you have 2 items. Therefore, using this example, 1 + 1 = 2
I will argue this from two perspectives. I agree with the outcome but not with resouition he stated. I will show that 1+1=2 but not with the logic he presents. I will also show how 2 can equal 1 or 2=1 Contention 1PostulatesI am arguing this based off his resolution. I do agree 1+1= 2 but not because of the stance he gave. He states this "1 + 1 = 2 because if you have one item and add another item to it you have 2 items. Therefore, using this example, 1 + 1 = 2"If you have an item and add another item to the first, it does not always make 2 items. The 2 items could merge and make one item. Example 1+1=11 By taking 1 and adding it to another 1, you are showing that side by side the could make 11 or even become one item and make the number 11. We know 1+1 = 2 by a rule guideline that is refereed to as the Peano Postulates It pretty much states this word for word "1. 0 is a number.2. The successor of any number is also a number.3. No two distinct numbers have the same successor.4. 0 is not the successor of any number.5. If any property is possessed by 0 and also by the successor of any number having that property, then all numbershave that property."This is basically defining what the + is, and stating that every successor of a number can not have the same successor. Pros resolution is not refined, and I can arrive at any conclusion with the guideline he presented. Contention 2Classic FallaciesI could Claim that 2 = 1 or 1 equals itself. This is arrived at using basic algebra "a = ba2 = aba2 - b2 = ab-b2(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b)a+b = bb+b = b2b = b2 = 1"or that 1+1=1 "a = ba2 = b2a2 - b2 = 0(a-b)(a+b) = 0(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)1(a+b) = 0(a+b) = 01 + 1 = 02 = 01 = 01 + 1 = 1"Contention 3Principa MathematicaThis is a book by Russell White head which attempts to explain this very question. Again it shows that adding one thing to another is not the cause of 1+1 =2 This adds to the first contention but these are some of the points the volumes try to encompass It goes on to show what inductive relations are and the essence of assigning values to the numbers in which you are using View the youtube video above In ClosingHis resolution is false. 1+1 does equal 2 but not by the logic presented. http://quod.lib.umich.edu... http://plato.stanford.edu... http://mathworld.wolfram.com... http://myhome.spu.edu... |

**2**votes have been placed for this debate. Showing

**1**through

**2**records.

Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago

emil1 | Mikal | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | 0 points | |

Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | 0 points | |

Who had better conduct: | - | - | 1 point | |

Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | 1 point | |

Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | 3 points | |

Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | 2 points | |

Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |

**Reasons for voting decision:**This debate is not whether 1 +1 = 2. This debate is about the reasoning that supports the conclusion. This means that both debaters can agree that 1+ 1 =2, while simultaneously disputing the reasoning why. Con clearly and concisely showed, using the history of mathematics, why the resolution is true. Pro's statement begged the question and didn't answer anything. Due to the effectiveness of Con's explanation, the shortness and tautological argument from Pro, and the fact that Con's statements could not rebutted, I give Con arguments.

Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago

emil1 | Mikal | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | 0 points | |

Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | 0 points | |

Who had better conduct: | - | - | 1 point | |

Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | 1 point | |

Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | 3 points | |

Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | 2 points | |

Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |

**Reasons for voting decision:**CON had 3 arguments while PRO basically just repeated his resolution. CON also had sources.

11comments have been posted on this debate. Showing1through10records.That is why I called it a logical fallacy

in this problem:

1 ."a = b

2. a2 = ab

3. a2 - b2 = ab-b2

4. (a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b)

5. a+b = b

6. b+b = b

7. 2b = b

8. 2 = 1"

if a=b then a-b is zero

if a-b in zero than you cannot divide by a-b in step 4

if you divide by zero then the equation is undefined which would make 1 not equal 2

Ergo you have to define the values or 1 could take on any identity. Which is contention 3. Also there is a whole book about this written, I had to read some of it back in college. The link is there if you want to refine your statement.

Con's logic is fallible. In argument 1 he states that adding one object to another can end up with things merging, this though true, is not topical. He essentially makes a straw man argument by taking the example that Pro used to prove his theory of objects. In reality the topic is talking about the idea of 1, Pro used the object theory correctly whereas Con did not. Con's 2nd argument was completely ludicrous for example

a = b

a2 = ab

That is wrong, in order to have a proper flow of equations you must do the same thing to each side, you may say "but a = b so it is 2a" but this is wrong because it would actually be a^2 = ab.....

in the second equation he states that

a2 - b2 = 0

(a-b)(a+b) = 0

but this is also faulty. it would actually end up being 2(a-b)=0..

Con's only argument left is a complex argument that he also expended a sentence on. You should always explain your sources, they are not there to add to your words, only to back them up.....

Pro wins because of his simplicity, where Con lost because he neglected to back up any of his more complex arguments. He failed through logical fallacies, errors in math, or just plain not expounding on information.

I WOULD VOTE, BUT MY ACCOUNT WON'T LET ME VERIFY MY IDENTITY: