How much is one plus one?

How much is one plus one? In a brain teaser, 1+ 1 can be equal to (many answers).

1, 2, 3, 10, Wang, A, You, Shen, Tian, Feng,

In the mathematical calculation of 10 decimal system,1+1= 2; It is also the foundation of the "Mathematics Building".

In binary mathematical calculation,1+1=10;

Why is 1+ 1 equal to 2?

This is defined by mathematicians, because the definition of 2 is the addition of two 1

That is, axiom, without proof.

It can also be proved by reduction to absurdity.

Is 1+ 1 equal to 3?

Many people associate it with the person who proves 1+ 1=2.

Chen Jingrun Goldbach conjecture is not equal to 1+ 1=2.

But "the sum of two prime numbers must be a sum number", abbreviated as 1+ 1=2, that is, 1+ 1=2 is not this 1+ 1=2.

How much is one plus one?

explain

Mathematically one plus one equals two,

One plus one equals king in Chinese.

It can be equal to two in mathematics, to a field in Chinese, to one in biology (predation), to two (mutual benefit), to three, four, five ... (reproduction), and there are many things I don't know.

Except equal to 2, 1+ 1 has different answers in different situations:

1, Boolean algebra. 1+ 1= 1;

2. In the binary system. 1+ 1= 10;

3. Lickitung replied. For example, 1 plus 1 equals love;

4. As a representative. Such as Goldbach conjecture;

5. When playing word games. For example, 1 clip 1, the answer is zero;

6. When turning sharply. For example, 1 plus 1, the answer is11;

7. The unit is different. For example, 1 hour plus 1 minute equals 6 1 minute;

8. When changing units. For example, 1 hand plus 1 hand equals 1 hand;

9. When it is really needed. For example, a foot of cloth plus a catty of rice equals a bag of rice;

10, intelligence test. For example, a drop of water plus a drop of water equals a drop of water;

1 1, under special circumstances. For example, a man plus a pregnant woman equals three people;

12, funny answer. For example, a cat plus a mouse equals a complete cat;

13, doing crossword puzzles. If you add 1, the answer is ten; One plus one, the answers are Wang, Feng, 30, etc. One plus one equals, and the answers are Tian, you, A, Shen, etc.

14、……

In mathematics, what is the original answer of1+1= 21+1? Possibility 1: "1+ 1 = 2" According to common sense, "1+ 1" must be. Calculator, life, are enough to confirm this. For example, "1 apple+1 apple =2 apples, 1 CB+ 1 CB=2 CB, 1 person+1 person =2 people ..." These examples seem a little naive, but Seeing this, you must have doubts, but this reason is not surprising. Smart, you must have understood the mystery in your heart long ago! Indeed, "1+ 1" is equal to "1" in the following cases! "1 sandpile+1 sandpile", together, or 1 sandpile? ! "1 drip+1 drip" is also equal to a drop of water! Anything that can be dissolved in the sky, together, will combine into another new object. Its unit is still "1", but its volume has changed. Therefore, the possibility of "1+ 1= 1" cannot be ruled out! Possibility 3: The result of "1+ 1=3" must be unexpected! How can "1+ 1" be equal to "3"? Don't worry, let me take my time. To tell the truth, I stole it from others. As the saying goes: "When one creature combines with another, it will crystallize!" (I don't think this is a common saying) Now you are making progress! Yes, the "crystallization" of the combination of one creature and another, plus the creature itself, are not three creatures? It can be seen that "1+ 1" is equal to "3" in this case, which is correct! (hee hee ..... imagination is fierce enough! Stealth ...) Possibility 4: "1+ 1= Wang" Although mathematics must have numbers, with the infiltration of words, another result will be obtained ~! This possibility is completely calculated by the method of "combining Chinese and western". First, the Arabic numeral "1" is changed to Chinese "one", and the plus sign remains unchanged, and then it is rearranged to get "one", "one" and "one". This sequence happens to be a stroke sequence for writing the word "Wang"! What's up, god ~! Are you "dumbfounded" about this article in front of the computer? Wang Tianjia's mathematics is ever-changing. Who can predict the result? In the future, there must be some possibilities waiting for you "geniuses" to develop and create a reportage of Xu Chi 1+ 1=2. People in China know the conjecture of Chen Jingrun and Goldbach. So, what is Goldbach conjecture? Goldbach is a German middle school teacher and a famous mathematician. He was born in 1690, and was elected as an academician of Russian Academy of Sciences in 1725. 1742, Goldbach found in his teaching that every even number not less than 6 is the sum of two prime numbers (numbers that can only be divisible by 1 and itself). For example, 6 = 3+3, 12 = 5+7 and so on. 1On June 7th, 742, Goldbach wrote to Euler, a great mathematician at that time, and put forward the following conjecture: (a) Any even number ≥6 can be expressed as the sum of two odd prime numbers. (b) Any odd number ≥9 can be expressed as the sum of three odd prime numbers. This is the famous Goldbach conjecture. Euler wrote back to him on June 30th, saying that he believed the conjecture was correct, but he couldn't prove it. Describing such a simple problem, even a top mathematician like Euler can't prove it. This conjecture has attracted the attention of many mathematicians. Since Goldbach put forward this conjecture, many mathematicians have been trying to conquer it, but they have not succeeded. Of course, some people have done some specific verification work, such as: 6 = 3+3, 8 = 3+5, 10 = 5+5 = 3+7, 12 = 5+7,14 = 7+7 = 3+/kloc. Someone checked the even numbers within 33× 108 and above 6 one by one, and Goldbach conjecture (a) was established. But strict mathematical proof requires the efforts of mathematicians. Since then, this famous mathematical problem has attracted the attention of thousands of mathematicians all over the world. 200 years have passed and no one has proved it. Goldbach conjecture has therefore become an unattainable "pearl" in the crown of mathematics. People's enthusiasm for Goldbach conjecture lasted for more than 200 years. Many mathematicians in the world try their best, but they still can't figure it out. It was not until the 1920s that people began to approach it. 1920, the Norwegian mathematician Brown proved by an ancient screening method, and reached a conclusion that every even number with a large ratio can be expressed as (9+9). This method of narrowing the encirclement is very effective, so scientists gradually reduce the prime factor in each number from (99) until every number is a prime number, thus proving Goldbach's conjecture. At present, the best result is proved by China mathematician Chen Jingrun in 1966, which is called Chen Theorem: "Any large enough even number is the sum of a prime number and a natural number, while the latter is only the product of two prime numbers. This result is often called a big even number and can be expressed as "1+2". Before Chen Jingrun, the progress of even numbers can be expressed as the sum of the products of S prime numbers and T prime numbers (referred to as "s+t" problem) as follows: 1920, Norwegian Brown proved "9+9". 1924, Latmach of Germany proved "7+7". 1932, Esterman proved "6+6". 1937, Lacey in Italy successively proved "5+7", "4+9", "3+ 15" and "2+366". 1938, Bukit Tiber of the Soviet Union proved "5+5". 1940, Bukit Tiber of the Soviet Union proved "4+4". 1948, Rini of the Hungarian Empire proved "1+C", where c is an infinite integer. 1956, Wang Yuan of China proved "3+4". 1957, Wang Yuan of China proved "3+3" and "2+3". 1962, Pan Chengdong of China and Barba of the Soviet Union proved "1+5", and Wang Yuan of China proved "1+4". 1965, Buchwitz and George W. vinogradov of the Soviet Union and Pompeii of Italy proved "1+3". 1966, China Chen Jingrun proved "1+2". It took 46 years from Brown's proof of 1920 of "9+9" to Chen Jingrun's capture of 1966 of "+2". Since the birth of Chen Theorem for more than 30 years, people's further research on Goldbach conjecture is futile. -3j)，j=2，3，…； And so on), if it can be proved that at least one pair of natural numbers is not filtered out, such as p 1 and p2, then both p 1 and p2 are prime numbers, that is, n=p 1+p2, then Goldbach's conjecture is proved. The description in the previous part is a natural idea. The key is to prove that' at least one pair of natural numbers has not been filtered out'. No one in the world can prove this part yet. If it can be proved, this conjecture will be solved. However, because the big even number n (not less than 6) is equal to the sum of odd numbers of its corresponding odd number series (starting with 3 and ending with n-3). Therefore, according to the sum of these odd numbers, all possible connection numbers of the related types of prime+prime (1+kloc-0/) or prime+composite (including composite+prime 2+ 1 or composite+composite 2+2) (note:1), namely The "category combinations" that 65438 can export are 1+ 1, 1+ 1 and 1+2,1+and 65438+2. Because 1+2 and 2+2 and 1+2 do not contain1+. So 1+ 1 does not cover all possible "category combinations", that is, its existence is alternating. So far, if the existence of 1+2 and 1+2 can be excluded, it is proved that 1+ 1 But the fact is that 1+2 and 2+2, and 1+2 (or at least one of them) are some laws revealed by Chen's theorem (any large enough even number can be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers, or the sum of the products of one prime number and two prime numbers), such as the existence of 1+2 and the coexistence of 6542. Therefore, 1+2 and 2+2, and 1+2 (or at least one) "category combination" patterns are certain, objective and inevitable. So 1+ 1 is impossible. This fully shows that the Brownian sieve method cannot prove "1+ 1". Actually: 1. What Chen Jingrun proved was not Goldbach's conjecture. Chen Jingrun and Shao Pinzong's Goldbach conjecture (Liaoning Education Press) wrote on page 1 18 that the result of Chen Jingrun's theorem "1+ 1" is that for any big even number n, then an odd prime number p' can always be found. Make at least one of the following two formulas hold: "n = p'+p" (a) n = p1+p2 * P3 (b) Of course, it does not rule out that (A)(B) holds simultaneously, for example, 62=43+ 19, 62 = 7+5x. "As we all know, Goldbach conjecture means that even number (a) greater than 4 holds, and 1+2 means that even number (b) greater than 10 holds, which are two different propositions. Chen Jingrun confused two unrelated propositions when he declared the prize, stealing the concept (proposition), and Chen Jingrun did not prove 65438+. Second, Chen Jingrun used the wrong form of reasoning, and Chen adopted the "affirmative formula" of compatible alternative reasoning: if it is not A, it means B, so if it is A, it means B, or both A and B hold. This is a wrong form of reasoning, ambiguous, far-fetched, meaningless and uncertain, just like the fortune teller said, "Mrs. Li gave birth, or gave birth to a boy, or gave birth to a girl, or both boys and girls gave birth to multiple births." Anyway, it's right. This judgment is called falsifiability in epistemology, and falsifiability is the boundary between science and pseudoscience. There is only one correct form of consistent substitution reasoning. Negative affirmation: either A is B or A is B, so there are two rules in B. Consistent substitution reasoning: 1, and denying one part of the substitute limb means affirming the other part; 2. Affirm some verbal limbs but don't deny others. It can be seen that the recognition of Chen Jingrun shows that China's mathematical society is chaotic and lacks basic logic training. Third, Chen Jingrun used many wrong concepts. Chen used two vague concepts of "big enough" and "almost prime number" in his paper. The characteristics of scientific concepts are: accuracy, specificity, stability, systematicness and testability. And "big enough" means 10 to the power of 500,000, which is an unverifiable number. Almost prime number refers to a very drawn prime number, which is actually a composite number. Taking pictures without strict proof is a children's game. Fourthly, Chen Jingrun's conclusion is not a theorem. Chen's conclusion uses special names (some, some), that is, some N is (a) and some N is (b), so it can't be regarded as theorems, because all strict scientific theorems and laws are expressed in the form of full-name (all, all, all, each) propositions, and a full-name proposition states the unchangeable relationship among all elements of a given class. And Chen Jingrun's conclusion is not even a concept. 5. Chen Jingrun's works seriously violate the cognitive law. Before finding the general formula of prime numbers, Coriolis conjecture can't be solved, just as turning a circle into a square depends on whether the transcendence of π is clear, and the stipulation of matter determines the stipulation of quantity. (Legend of Goldbach's conjecture) Wang Xiaoming 1999, editor of the third issue of China Legend Tao Huijie) The idea of Brownian screening method is as follows: any even number (natural number) can be written as 2n, where n is a natural number, and 2n can be expressed as the sum of a pair of different forms of natural numbers: 2n =1+(2n-65440. 3j and (2n-3j), j = 2, 3, ...; And so on), if it can be proved that at least one pair of natural numbers is not filtered out, such as p 1 and p2, then both p 1 and p2 are prime numbers, that is, n=p 1+p2, then Goldbach's conjecture is proved. The description in the previous part is a natural idea. The key is to prove that' at least one pair of natural numbers has not been filtered out'. No one in the world can prove this part yet. If it can be proved, this conjecture will be solved. However, because the big even number n (not less than 6) is equal to the sum of odd numbers of its corresponding odd number series (starting with 3 and ending with n-3). Therefore, according to the sum of these odd numbers, all possible connection numbers of the related types of prime+prime (1+kloc-0/) or prime+composite (including composite+prime 2+ 1 or composite+composite 2+2) (note:1), namely The "category combinations" that 65438 can export are 1+ 1, 1+ 1 and 1+2,1+and 65438+2. Because 1+2 and 2+2 and 1+2 do not contain1+. So 1+ 1 does not cover all possible "category combinations", that is, its existence is alternating. So far, if the existence of 1+2 and 1+2 can be excluded, it is proved that 1+ 1 But the fact is that 1+2 and 2+2, and 1+2 (or at least one of them) are some laws revealed by Chen's theorem (any large enough even number can be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers, or the sum of the products of one prime number and two prime numbers), such as the existence of 1+2 and the coexistence of 6542. Therefore, 1+2 and 2+2, and 1+2 (or at least one) "category combination" patterns are certain, objective and inevitable. So 1+ 1 is impossible. This fully shows that the Brownian sieve method cannot prove "1+ 1". Because the distribution of prime numbers itself changes in disorder, there is no simple proportional relationship between the change of prime number pairs and the increase of even numbers, and the value of prime number pairs rises and falls when even numbers increase. Can the change of prime pairs be related to the change of even numbers through mathematical relations? Can't! There is no quantitative law to follow in the relationship between even values and their prime pair values. For more than 200 years, people's efforts have proved this point, and finally they choose to give up and find another way. So people who used other methods to prove Goldbach's conjecture appeared, and their efforts only made progress in some fields of mathematics, but had no effect on Goldbach's conjecture. Goldbach conjecture is essentially the relationship between an even number and its prime number pair, and there is no mathematical expression to express the relationship between an even number and its prime number pair. It can be proved in practice, but the contradiction between individual even numbers and all even numbers cannot be solved logically. How do individuals equal the average? Individuals and the general are the same in nature, but opposite in quantity. Contradictions will always exist. Goldbach conjecture is a mathematical conclusion that can never be proved theoretically and logically. "In contemporary languages, Goldbach conjecture has two contents, the first part is called odd conjecture, and the second part is called even conjecture. Odd number conjecture points out that any odd number greater than or equal to 7 is the sum of three prime numbers. Even conjecture means that even numbers greater than or equal to 4 must be the sum of two prime numbers. " (Quoted from Goldbach conjecture and Pan Chengdong) I don't want to say more about the difficulty of Goldbach conjecture. I want to talk about why modern mathematicians are not interested in Goldbach conjecture and why many so-called folk mathematicians in China are interested in Goldbach conjecture. In fact, in 1900, the great mathematician Hilbert made a report at the World Congress of Mathematicians and raised 23 challenging questions. Goldbach conjecture is a sub-topic of the eighth question, including Riemann conjecture and twin prime conjecture. In modern mathematics, it is generally believed that the most valuable is the generalized Riemann conjecture. If Riemann conjecture holds, many questions will be answered, while Goldbach conjecture and twin prime conjecture are relatively isolated. If we simply solve these two problems, it is of little significance to solve other problems. So mathematicians tend to find some new theories or tools to solve Goldbach's conjecture "by the way" while solving other more valuable problems. For example, a meaningful question is: prime formula. If this problem is solved, (see "prime number formula" and "twin prime number formula" for details) it should be said that the prime number problem is not a problem. Why are folk mathematicians so obsessed with Kochi conjecture and not concerned about more meaningful issues such as Riemann conjecture? An important reason is that Riemann conjecture is difficult for people who have never studied mathematics to understand its meaning. Goldbach guessed that primary school students could watch it. It is generally believed in mathematics that these two problems are equally difficult. Folk mathematicians mostly use elementary mathematics to solve Goldbach conjecture. Generally speaking, elementary mathematics cannot solve Goldbach's conjecture. To say the least, even if an awesome person solved Goldbach's conjecture in the framework of elementary mathematics that day, what's the point? I'm afraid this solution is almost as meaningful as doing a math exercise. At that time, brother Bai Dili challenged the mathematical world and put forward the problem of the fastest descent line. Newton solved the steepest descent line equation with extraordinary calculus skills, John Parker tried to solve the steepest descent line equation skillfully with optical methods, and Jacob Parker tried to solve this problem in a more troublesome way. Although Jacob's method is the most complicated, he developed a general method to solve this kind of problems-variational method. Now, Jacob's method is the most meaningful and valuable. Similarly, Hilbert once claimed to have solved Fermat's last theorem, but he did not announce his own method. Someone asked him why, and he replied, "This is a chicken that lays golden eggs. Why should I kill it? " Indeed, in the process of solving Fermat's last theorem, many useful mathematical tools have been further developed, such as elliptic curves and modular forms. Therefore, modern mathematics circles are trying to study new tools and methods, expecting Goldbach's conjecture to give birth to theories and tools. [Edit this paragraph] 1+ 1=? Life formula 1+ 1=? Isn't it equal to two? Yes, that's true. But these two should not be underestimated. 2 can be decomposed into 1+ 1, 0. 1+ 1.9, 0.5+1...1,and its components are: 0.5+0.5, 0./. For example, 1+ 1=2 is decomposed into: 0.5+0.5+ 1=2, where 0.5+0.5= natural+acquired culture; 1= sweat. This is a very easy-to-understand formula. Of course, from another perspective, smart people will know that there is no absolute thing. The answer can't be only 1, which means the same thing.