1 + 1 = 3

according to that equation.
dividing both sides by  x gives you 2x/x = 3
besides, if u substituted a value OTHER than 1 in for X.. then you totally destroy the original question.

Next please.

What?  You don't get (x + x)/x = x/x + x/x = 1 + 1  ??
What is wrong with that logic?  ;-)

> if u substituted a value OTHER than 1 in for X.. then you totally destroy the original question.

The equation is valid.  It has a solution for a real number value of x.  (Obviously x = 1 is not a solution)  In order to not destroy the equation you have to substitute the value for x that makes the equation true.  Do you see what value that is?  (That will reveal the flaw in my "proof" above.)

My and my wife (1+1) without no other adquisition, are now 3 (my new soon), so 1+1=3 in my case! No one said it had to be mathematically proven!

I emant "son", not "soon", ofcourse! (see him at www.guille.tk !)

Ok, let's see if you'll accept this:

(-1)(-1) = 1
sqrt(-1*-1) = sqrt(1)
sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = sqrt(1)
i * i = 1
-1 = 1

Now divide both sides by 2 and add 2.5:
-0.5 = 0.5
2 = 3
1 + 1 = 3

:)

doesnt work.. the square root rules dont apply to negative numbers so you cant say that the sqrt of -1*-1 = the sqrt of -1 times the sqrt of -1
(simply put: x<0 y<0 sqrt(x*y) does not equal sqrt (x) * sqrt(y)

The only thing wrong with wytcom's solution is that if you solve x + x = 3*x (by subtracting 2x from each side) you come up with the solution that x=0, hence dividing both sides by x is not a valid operation since you cannot divide by 0.

If one is interperated as an approximation of a number, then the actaul value of one can be bound between the interval [0.5, 1.5) so the value of one plus one can be any number bound between the interval [1.0, 3.0). So one plus one can equal three.

I remember seeing something about that in college as well, if memory serves me correct I think it had to do with an agitated state of atoms in a quantum enviroment.  I could be way off base, happens all the time.
G

The first equation assumed x + x = 3x is wrong. It cant be simply said 2x = 3x and so 2 = 3.

You can't do 1+1=3 in the "usual numbers", so haye to use "languaje tricks" as "I have a glass and a googles, so I have 3 glasses in total, so 1+1=3" (or like the first I sent) or try it in another set of numbers, for instance "1+1=3 mod 1" is absolutely true, but useless.

So, in a mod 1 algebra, 1+1=3 is true, and points should be mine... isn't it? ;-)

If my understanding of mod arithmetic is accurate the results of any operation with any integers is going to be 0 mod 1 since that is the remainder when you divide an integer by 1. And clearly, just because two things are the same in modular arithmetic doesnt make them the same. The question was not to prove that 1+1 mod 1 is the same as 3 mod 1, but to show that 1+1=3. Would Sergio_Hdez take his paycheck mod 1 :) ?

Nobody should get the points. Because there is simply no method of proving that 1+1=3.

If it were true, then all the problems in the world would be solved. $2 would equal $3. 200 million tons of food would be 300 million tons. 2 gigawatt-hours of energy would be 3 gigawatt-hours. And so on....

Good answer estckpo, points mod 1 is a good score!

But when you state that "1+1=3" you are not saying in with "algebraic frame" you are talking... if you say 1/2=2/4 you are implicity saying you are NOT in integers Z, but at least in fractions Q, and if you say "sqrt(-1) = 2*sqrt(-1)" you must be in C (imaginary numbers)... but here no one said we were in Z or in N or in any other set of numbers, so I can choose witchever I one to evaluate the expresion, and among the posiblities you can chose N (positive integers), Z (integers), Q (fractions), R (reals), C (imaginary) or, for instance, Z/Zn (integers mod n), so you are assuming we were in Z and I didn't. Just de-asume it and join my relegion... mod 1 always work!

ch0c, "1+1=3" is not true in integers numbers (everyday numbers), and thats why any atempt to probe it (assuming Z) will fail, but in Z/Z (mod 1), it is absolutely true... well, in this group all equalities are true as all the number equals 0 (as estackpo said), that is the trick, but a legal one!

It happends similar with "2+2=1", it is true in Z/Z3 (mod 3), as 2+2=4 (in Z) and 4=1 mod 3 (in Z/Z3), so "2+2=1" is true at least in one set of numbers (not really a simple set, but I don't know hoe to translate "anillo" from spanish, abelian group is the mos similar thing I know to translate).

Anyhow, I am not interesting in points, just in arguing!!

Using modulus is not a valid argument, because you never state that numbers are EQUAL mod x. They are CONGRUENT. Using mods does not define a seperate number system at all.