The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

yes 1+1=3

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 296 times Debate No: 81523
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)







is real i have a phsd in matheatics and aslo inmanths.

You acannot porve me wrong becuase I show to Mr. Mount and he is math teacher he laughe at me which menas thatn ia m actually correct. mr mount is good teach he let us play soccert so he must be write, i was called genius thins yoear in 6th grade so i am reight how about that how can u evenr ebut my logacly ritien points

sorry about my gramma, i am texting and rick gave me to use so yesaha. also i reallt like crystal <3


Thank you pro. I will provide a reason that 1 + 1 = 2 in this round as well as refute your points.

In order to start defining 1+1=2, we need some basis of what we are talking about; we need some things that show us what addition means, what equalling means, etc.

The Peano Postulates
Peano was a mathematician that allows us to talk about math through his postulates (that are often called axioms now); it is important when defining new ways of ordering numbers to speak the same language, so he gave us the language to speak.

The smallest set N which satisfies the following postulates is indistinguishable from, and can be taken to be, the natural numbers:
Postulate 1. 1 is in N
Postulate 2. If x is in N, then it's successor (number after) x' is in N
Postulate 3. There is no x in N such that x' = 1
Postulate 4. If y in N isn't 1, then there is a x in N such that x' = y
Postulate 5. If x and y are in N and x' = y', then x = y.
Postulate 6. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication (x in S ==> x' in S) holds, then S = N

Further, Peano gave us some ways to more easily grasp the concept of addition.
Def: Let a and b be in N.
1. If b = 1, then define a + b = a' (using P1 and P2).
2. If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N (using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

We can restate this as:
1. a + 1 = a', and
2. a + b' = (a + b)'

Just as a matter of notation, we write 1' = 2, 2' = 3, 3' = 4, etc.

Now, onto the actual proof of 1 + 1 = 2:
Let a = 1 and b = 1
a + b = a + a
a + a = a'
a' = 1'
1' = 2

Therefore, 1 + 1 = 2.

Now, let's examine my opponent's proof.
1+1=11 [This breaks Peano's postulates, it must be wrong]
11-0=101 [Not possible with P5 of Peano]
101=lol [Possible with some sorts of variables]
lol=lool [Therefore l^2 * o^2 = 101]
o+o=1 [1/2 = .5, therefore o=.5] [This means in the above answer, l must necessarily be around 10.4 due to rounding]

1+(0+0)+1=1+(pi)/(sin(8)) + f(00) [Or, 1+1 = 1+ pi/sin(8) [f(00) has no definition]. 1+1 = 1+~3.18 = ~4.18]
~4.18 = 1+1+1 [This isn't true; 1`` = 3 necessarily]
~4.18 = 3

So, we can see that there are multiple lines that are broken mathematically. My opponent's proof just doesn't hold up.
Debate Round No. 1


u try to be smart by say postilats but i alredy told u mr.mount is my maths tehcer ansd he is prooff


I'm being smart by saying postulates because that's the only way to prove something is so.

Hitler said that the Jews were inferior and he taught millions to believe this - does this mean that the fact remains uncountered and absolutely true? Maybe ... but just because Hitler said it does not mean it is true. Further, just because your math teacher said 1+1=3 does not necessarily mean it is.
Debate Round No. 2


but peano soun like (hehehehehehd0 peni!s

aslo htter say jews ar iferer becuse it is not ture, becyuase his math teacher did not say that jews basd
if u think Hitlr was rong why is he ur profiled pic??/?

i had defeted u in all ways fooolinsh youn 3 yurold


Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sarai.K82 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I am fairly simple, so I thought 1+1 = 2 before the debate. Pro's arguments did not persuade me otherwise. I might have called conduct tied, but for Pro's comment, " ... fooolinsh youn 3 yurold." Pro does not follow traditional English language spelling and grammar rules while Con does. Con's arguments were more persuasive to me. I didn't notice any citations to authority by Con and I don't know enough about Pro's math teacher to evaluate the reliability of that source, so I put that issue as tied.