1. Oh yes , I am sure it was proved a few years ago, that 1+1 actually does NOT equal 2..it is just we have been taught it does
The only solution I can came up with right now to understand that is this -

Code:
```1 apple + 1 apple == 1 apple and 1 apple
But wouldn't 1 apple and 1 apple == 2 apples?
Therefore 2 apples == 1 apple + 1 apple
Hence that 1 + 1 == 2.```
I'm not really sure what you're talking about, because as far as I know 1+1 equals 2. Can you please explain otherwise? Until that time I'm going to think your a fool.......

2. It's a false proof...

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

P.S. a2= a(squared)

3. "But, Biology does not say love or true love does not exist, simply because we do not understand fully how emotions and the brain works. It says physically it does not exist, even though we know it can do"

Biology says love exists in so far that it has measureable effects on the brain and can be observed in other animals, and true love in the sense of the "one special person out there for you" kind does not.

Everything is physical, love included (ie. its caused by hormones/neurones rather than etherial magic stuff).

"Biology cannot explain why we feel hungry correctly as yet"

The exact mechanism of "how" we feel are not fully understood but the brains behaviour and how responses are mediated are pretty well studied.

"So, emotions are sod all to do with biology really, and the man that can suss the brain/brain functions/soul out will be rich"

Emotions have everything to do with biology, we know large amounts about the brain, of course there is still a huge amount to learn, the exact mechanisms of sensation and the concious mind are one of the last great biological problems yet to be solved. Anyway biology doesn't need to have any information on the mechanisms of emotions to disprove the "true love" that i described.

Oh and the evolutionary basis for many emotions are quite well understood love included.

"Oh yes , I am sure it was proved a few years ago, that 1+1 actually does NOT equal 2..it is just we have been taught it does"

Uh.... i don't think so, 1+1 is defined as being 2, further more if it wasn't true none of maths would work, and hence none of science would work, and plainly they both do.

4. Uh.... i don't think so, 1+1 is defined as being 2, further more if it wasn't true none of maths would work, and hence none of science would work, and plainly they both do.
It's a false proof...
It can be proven mathematically that 1+1=1 although in reality it wouldn't work for obvious reasons... as 2*1 cannot equal 1*1. That would just be silly... aside from being utterly impossible.

5. "It can be proven mathematically that 1+1=1"

Are you sure it can? Your proof is false as you say since you divide through by zero.

That proof can be used to make any number plus itself appear to equal zero.

6. True...This false proof relies on dividing both sides of an equation by zero (disguised as a-b). You can divide both sides of an equation by the same thing so long as you are *not* dividing by zero.
It seems mathematically possible when written as (a-b) but is impossible because (a-b)=0.
That proof can be used to make any number plus itself appear to equal zero.
Yep.

Another good one is to prove that 2=1 by taking square roots and using only the minus sign to achieve the 'correct' conclusion:
-2 = -2
4 - 6 = 1 - 3
4 - 6 + 9/4 = 1 - 3 + 9/4
(2 - 3/2)2 = (1 - 3/2)2
2 - 3/2 = 1 - 3/2
2 = 1

All completely false and with flaws that will ultimately prove them to be incorrect... but interesting nonetheless.

7. Clyde

Furthermore opinions are not neccesarily false.
Opinions are false because no matter the subject, you don't have all the required information to be correct. This is why killing everyone is the only solution, whatever you think it will be wrong.

Series...... mathematics will never change new maths can be derived but old maths can never be replaced. 1+1 will always equal 2.
That's irrelevant. Because the entire concept of maths will change, which will include "1 + 1 = 2", and thus it will be false (already is false).

Math is an incorrect way to describe the world. Math can be viewed as a world of its own which can in a limited way simulate another world. But math cannot describe the reality completely. Therfore math will change in the future, and math is a false description of everything except for math itself.

8. "Opinions are false because no matter the subject, you don't have all the required information to be correct"

In my opinion the Earth is not flat, that opinion is CORRECT. I do have the required information to be correct, or rather i have the required information to have some grasp of the probability of it being incorrect.

"Because the entire concept of maths will change, which will include "1 + 1 = 2", and thus it will be false (already is false). "

The concept of maths will change? What the hell does that mean? Maths will not, cannot, ever change. Mathematical rules are PURE LOGIC, immuteable, unchangeable, set in stone.

"Math is an incorrect way to describe the world"

Based on what?

"Math can be viewed as a world of its own which can in a limited way simulate another world"

If we got the equations right mathematics could PERFECTLY describe the universe. (we will never have all the equations right though, because they would be too complex to ever solve)

"But math cannot describe the reality completely"

Yes it can.

"Therfore math will change in the future, and math is a false description of everything except for math itself."

See the "therefore math will change", its another "because my computer mouse is not a real rodent therefore there must be orangutangs that eat fruit on Mars". And maths is NOT a false description of anything, if APPLIED CORRECTLY it can perfectly describe "reality", our application in some areas is more accurate than in others. Some of our equations match observeable phenomenon to the limits of measurement there may be slight innacuracies if we increase the senseitivity of our measurement (in which case we need an altered equation), or there may not.

9. In my opinion the Earth is not flat, that opinion is CORRECT.
You're using the same simple description for objects that I did as a child: Round, flat, blue, hard, not round, not flat, not blue, not hard, etc.

But the earth is not round and not flat nor anything else, I can clearly see that the shape of the world is impossible to describe for me; there's some booze on my desktop for example, and outside there are trees, it doesn't look round.

Those simplified words that you're using for shapes cannot describe anything wihtout using simplifications, a football is not round either, just look on it with a microscope. The earth is not round, nor any other man invented form, the earth has a shape which there is no word for. Nobody can understand the shape of the earth.

And you must also consider that our earth is changing its shape constantly, there is no science that can describe this process. Shapes cannot describe the earth correctly.

If you say that both a football and the earth is round, why do they look completely different? Because your description is wrong.

A car is more similar a football than the earth is. Or is it? There is no method to describe anything.

Where do you draw the line? What is round, and what is flat? As I said, you don't have enough information to describe anything at all in the real world, therefore you should die, just like everyone else.

All the simple shapes in your head are lies because they don't exist in reality. Each object in the world has its own shape. You can't pretend, while still being correct, that your mental object can describe the real object.

The concept of maths will change? What the hell does that mean? Maths will not, cannot, ever change. Mathematical rules are PURE LOGIC, immuteable, unchangeable, set in stone.
The definition for the term "pure logic" will also change. There will be new methods of science to describe the world, but no method will ever be perfect.

Do you believe that the "science" we have today will last forever, do you believe that in one billion year we will still be saying that 1 + 1 = 2 ? It's like saying that Adam and Eve lived together, but why does it matter when the religion itself is a lie?

Of course we will not believe in math in the future, because our math will be nothing but a religon for the future - it will be a false description of the world. The set of shapes that you believe in is also like a religon - they fail to describe reality.

Everything will die.

10. Wow... I agree with Series (at least on the recent things - I didn't read the top half)... Every word we have is just a way for our minds to grasp something - a way to describe things...

11. I do not think like the following statement although I wrote it :

"OK. Let's assume that the leaders of all governments have lied to us and the world is not round. We just think so because the media has shown us pictures which we know nothing about. All the astronauts who have been in space and everything else that has been outside this planet are part of the plan to lie to everyone. Then how do you prove that Earth is not flat?"

12. "But the earth is not round and not flat nor anything else, I can clearly see that the shape of the world is impossible to describe for me; there's some booze on my desktop for example, and outside there are trees, it doesn't look round. "

It is a geometrical shape, albeit a complex one, my statement still holds true:

The Earth is not a perfectly flat (in its mathematical sense) surface.

"Those simplified words that you're using for shapes cannot describe anything wihtout using simplifications"

You are branching off on a tangent, however you are correct in so far as decriptions of an object's shape is most of the time a simplfication, but it doesn't matter, because people KNOW that its a simplification, its not like when people say "the Earth is round" they actually mean its a perfect sphere.

"the earth has a shape which there is no word for. Nobody can understand the shape of the earth. "

Its not a matter of "understanding", you might say noone can picture the exact shape of the Earth in their heads, but there is nothing to not understand about it.

"Where do you draw the line? What is round, and what is flat? "

In most instances its fairly easy to draw the line, in instances where its not, those terms are not used:

Is a cube round or flat? Answer neither, its cubical (if thats a word). Round and flat are general descriptions rather than specific ones, they decribe a set of characteristics.

"If you say that both a football and the earth is round, why do they look completely different? Because your description is wrong. "

No, not because your desciption is WRONG but because your description is INCOMPLETE. Two horses can both be described as horses yet be different, the description is not wrong, it is merely incomplete, but the description is not MEANT to be a complete description.

"As I said, you don't have enough information to describe anything at all in the real world, therefore you should die, just like everyone else."

Drivel, i have enough information to descibe as much or as little as i wish, without ever being wrong. And you have yet to explain why not being able to describe things to an infinite accuracy (because thats what you mean, not "all your opinions are wrong" but rather " you cannot infinitely accurately describe the universe") is a problem, and why that problem is solved by killing anyone).

"All the simple shapes in your head are lies because they don't exist in reality"

There are no "simple shapes in my head", i don't think the Earth is a perfect sphere and neither does anyone else i know.

"The definition for the term "pure logic" will also change"

er..... no it err.. won't. Logic as in if A=B & B=C then C=A will remain the same.

"There will be new methods of science to describe the world, but no method will ever be perfect. "

What do you mean perfect? It will never be infinitely accurate, but it will be accurate enough, in so far as we can measure the length of an object to something rediculous like *10^-10, of a metre, but not any further, but who freaking cares, if the length of objects is specified to within *10^-10!?

"Do you believe that the "science" we have today will last forever, do you believe that in one billion year we will still be saying that 1 + 1 = 2 ? It's like saying that Adam and Eve lived together, but why does it matter when the religion itself is a lie?"

You don't seem to understand what science or maths is, science is just working out the nature of the universe in a logical manner, so no, it won't change, scientific theories on the otherhand no doubt will.

And of COURSE 1+ 1 = 2, you can go 10 billion years into the future it will still be the case, because it IS DEFINED as being equal to 2. If you say 1+1 = 3, then all you are doing is replacing the SYMBOL for 2 with the SYMBOL for 3 the mathematical rules stay exactly the same.

Describing what mathematics actually is, is very difficult, but its universal, slugs do triganometry to work where to go, when you catch a ball your brain does a whole load of calculations to do it, if we ever met aliens you can bet they would do maths, and they would do it in exactly the same way we do, of course they would probably count in a different base, but the mathematical ruels would be exactly the same. Mathematics is the language of the universe, and it will never change.

"Of course we will not believe in math in the future, because our math will be nothing but a religon for the future - it will be a false description of the world"

........ maths is NOT a false description, in fact maths isn't a description of ANYTHING, its a language that can be USED to describe anything and everything, it can be used to describe the universe to infinite accuracy, it never will because we have limitations in our application of it, however it will describe the universe to an accuracy high enough to be considered good enough.

There is no alternative to maths (don't tell me about Wolfram).

"The set of shapes that you believe in is also like a religon - they fail to describe reality. "

I don't "believe" in a "set of shapes", they approxamate reality in certain situations, enough to be usefull. Of course they don't describe reality infinitely accurately... but then no one ever claimed they did, nor does anyone actually think they do.

"Everything will die."

Yea 2nd law of thermodynamics sucks eh.

"OK. Let's assume that the leaders of all governments have lied to us and the world is not round. We just think so because the media has shown us pictures which we know nothing about. All the astronauts who have been in space and everything else that has been outside this planet are part of the plan to lie to everyone. Then how do you prove that Earth is not flat"

By flying to Australia and back again.

13. "OK. Let's assume that the leaders of all governments have lied to us and the world is not round. We just think so because the media has shown us pictures which we know nothing about. All the astronauts who have been in space and everything else that has been outside this planet are part of the plan to lie to everyone. Then how do you prove that Earth is not flat"

By flying in a straight line...

14. I told you first that 1 + 1 does NOT eaqual 2.

I got good back up, but I was the first.

HEHE

And as for the biology nuts that keep coming on..as I said-We understand NOTHING about how the brain works.

All we can do is cut it up and have a look.

You sort out all the electical signals and stuff and get back to me.

C U in 2099....maybe

15. "I told you first that 1 + 1 does NOT eaqual 2."

Yes... and you were wrong.

"And as for the biology nuts that keep coming on..as I said-We understand NOTHING about how the brain works"

You might understand nothing, however the many professors of neurology understand rather alot. That's not to say there isn't a lot left to be worked out, there is, a huge amount, but to say we know "nothing" is simply ignorance.

"All we can do is cut it up and have a look."

Right... because there's no such thing as MRI, Cat scan's, infra-red spectroscopes, etc. etc.