Why do some people stand by the idea that 1+1 makes 1?
>>8108585
Who stands by that? You need to go outside man.
>>8108589
Are you saying I don't exist? I think 1+1 does make 1, are you saying this is lies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA5jsa1lR9c
it's true if you're doing boolean algebra
>>8108607
No. In boolean algebra, 1+1=0
I the trivial ring 1+1=1
1 cloud + 1 cloud = 1 cloud
>>8108585
One set Plus One set = an inclusive One set
>>8108585
Could you please give any reasoning for this?
>>8110048
Looks like you accidentally your mathematical ability as well.
>>8110048
>true or true is false
>>8108585
1 + 1 = 1 mod 1
>>8110152
That's zero, anon. All integers modulo 1 are zero.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1%2B1)+modulo+1
>>8110155
my mistake desu
We have [math]0 \,(1 \,+\, 1) \,=\, 0[/math] and [math]0 \,\times\, 1 \,=\, 0[/math] then [math]0 \,(1 \,+\, 1) \,=\, 0 \,\times\, 1[/math] then [math]1 \,+\, 1 \,=\, 1[/math], Q.E.D.
I have a Ph.D in economics so you can trust what I say.
>>8110214
Fixed :
>I have a Ph.D in economics so you can trust 99.9% what I say.
>>8110214
Divide by 0 fag
1+1=1
1+0=1
1*0=0
1*1=1
>>8110155
All integers are a representative of the equivalence class of zero modulo one. Don't say stupid things.
1 atom of oxygen + 1 atom of oxygen = 1 molecule of oxygen
1 + 1 = 1 confirmed
>>8110577
>dioxyen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUPAC_nomenclature_of_organic_chemistry
I hereby define addition (+) over the set
[math]S=\{1\}[/math]
to have the property
[math]1+1=1[/math]
It is clearly closed, associative, commutative, etc, etc
Very interesting mathematical system
Over what field are we evaluating 1+1? This is important.
>>8108585
Define two element field of 1 and 0, and it's fine
>>8112047
It's just [math]\mathbb{Z}_1[/math] anon.
>>8108607
Just wondering but why does boolean algebra use the operators + and * when it's basically just prepositional logic, so they might as well use the "and" and "or" symbols that look like a roof
>>8108607
It usually doesn't though.
>>8108585
The number 1 is a singularity, and because singularities are infinite, it can be added to another and still be infinite.
Therefore, 1+1=0
>>8112774
not related to the thread but how does (subset of integers (or rationals)) notation work? I need to say [math]\{ 1, 2, \ldots , n \} \subset \mathbb{Z}[/math] but I would like a compact notation (e.g. intervals in the real numbers simply use square brackets and parentheses and everyone can tell immediately what they mean).
>>8113288
Actually, to be more clear, what I really need to say is that [math]X \subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n\} \subset \mathbb{Z}[/math].
>>8112774
What? No it's not. 1 mod 1 = 0.
okay you autists
nitpick at this and make sure i got it right
i don't care about the quality or anything, i just want to make sure it's correct
i just want something that can shut these threads down immediately
>was planning on going into the construction of the reals via cauchy sequences but got bored
>>8113486
>was planning on going into the construction of the reals via cauchy sequences but got bored
Construction of the what?
>>8113502
it's just a fancy name for what's in the space between the rational numbers
>>8113524
There is no space between rational numbers. Real numbers are a dream, an illusion.
>>8113531
NJ Wildberger, how did you stumble off of youtube?
>>8113531
>>8113502
posting in a OnePlus viral marketing thread
1+1= window
Only brainlets won't understand
