While DaGreenBoi has provided enough evidence to prove this statement is false, I can do it as well:
Imagine you have an object A, and an object B. The nature of the objects does not matter.
By your definition, putting object A and object B together will make an object C appear from nowhere, which is a direct violation of the laws of physics.
Another proof is by reverse engineering your solution to the equation. If 1+1 = 3, then 3÷2=1. However, by calculating this (in a similar manner as what DaGreenBoi did) you find that 3÷2 = 1.5, so this means that 1 = 1.5, which is false.
that means 3-1 = 1 that means 3-2 = 0 that means 3 = 2 that means 3+3 = 2+2 that means 6 = 4 so ur s6il so by the near nature of ur username this is false
While DaGreenBoi has provided enough evidence to prove this statement is false, I can do it as well:
Imagine you have an object A, and an object B. The nature of the objects does not matter.
By your definition, putting object A and object B together will make an object C appear from nowhere, which is a direct violation of the laws of physics.
Another proof is by reverse engineering your solution to the equation. If 1+1 = 3, then 3÷2=1. However, by calculating this (in a similar manner as what DaGreenBoi did) you find that 3÷2 = 1.5, so this means that 1 = 1.5, which is false.
but if u have a man + a woman (1+1) it equals to the man, the woman, and the baby, so 1+1=3
Bro what, that’s weird asf
lol, idk, im just a wierdo or smth :skull:
You're owenathletic