Mathematics is a numerical representation of our perceived reality. However, our reality is not just about money or the number of rocks you have. So if you take 1 + 1 = x in terms of people, you will find that it doesn't equal two. If you add two people together, you have the two people (so 1 + 1 = 2, so far) as well as the developing relationship between them, which can either detract from the individuals or benefit them, so 1 + 1 = (2 + y) + x, where x is the value of the relationship formed and y is the benefit/detriment caused to the people by the relationship. Hurray a philosophical approach to maths.
Actually, a few years back I went to some conference or another for smart students, and one of the lecturers was talking about an ancient form of mathematics (I forget the origin of it, sorry). Anyways, he showed us a rectangle (representing a single two-dimensional plane) with three circles (representing one-dimensional points) on it, and he said "not counting the rectangle, how many objects/shapes/things are represented on this screen". Using that old branch of mathematics, the answer wasn't three, but seven: the 'points'(3), the space between each point-pair (3), and the triangle formed by all tsix of those (1). The logic is that those specific sections of space between the points, and the triangle formed by them only exist with applied restrictions. Even without physically represented points, the limited spaces and the triangle require the existence of their limitations (the limitations are part of what they are). So by creating only three points, you actually create seven 'things' (points + space + triangle = 3 + 3 + 1 = 7).
EDIT: This isn't a debate, it was just inspired by that guy talking about 1^x or whatever, except my thoughts got side-tracked so that they no longer applied enough to warrant a quote.
)
