If 1 2 2 1 Then I love you You love me? 5

The answer has three outcomes:

1.>I love you when you give more love than you love the people you love" You love me.

2.> When you give less home than the people you love, I love you You Love Me.

3.> when your home is giving the same, I love you = you love me.

But the third case is also difficult to establish, and it is very rare for two people in the world to love each other to give the same amount of love. I think it's better not to be good, it's better, and to love and be loved are the same as pain and happiness.

How much you give, you must let the other party reciprocate, this kind of love I don't think is called love. True and eternal family affection is that this equation will never hold! That is:

I love you≠ you love me.

Hehe, as long as you work hard, 1+2 will = 2+1.

Because: (1+2)*(2+1)=(2+1)*(1+2).

So: I love you > you love me = you love me & I love you.

It should be me + love you = love you + me.

Because one is literal, without any emotion, just like a robot, it will only proceed according to the program. People are different, they are emotional, assertive, and not controlled by others. You love him, you subjectively want to get something, you are possessive and controlling, you like someone, not love someone.

Because if you love someone, you won't ask them why they don't love you, love must be called love when it rises from liking to both parties. It's like a star chaser, who will always say that he likes a certain star, not that he loves him, because everyone knows that he knows that he unilaterally puts him into his life, and it is impossible for a star to put you into his life.

This scattering is a very abstract equation, just like we have a banquet in League of Legends, the well-known Korean e-sports player faker is famous for playing the mid-laner hero robbery, then faker plays robbery, I also play robbery, so am I equal to faker? Therefore, at the human level, you need to look at the problem emotionally, and you can't be too straight. Don't deliberately equate love, because love is not weighed on a scale, and there is no such thing as a little more or a little less.

If it's in the process of being in love, while I love you, you will definitely love me, but this can never be equal. No one can judge the amount and weight of love, and they should not care about it, because this is not a transaction, but a natural and purposeless process of making each other feel loved. If you feel that you are giving a little more, then please calm down and think about whether you love him or whether he likes him or just like him with interest.

Love is not a random export, but a product of a long and happy process, and only by truly never leaving can you feel love. I hope that all couples can rise to the level of love, instead of just liking the feeling of being in love.

Everyone's thoughts are different, if you love him, he wants him to love you, then there won't be so many lovelorns in the world. If you really love him, let go of him, let go of yourself, don't force it, find someone who loves you, it will be much happier than finding someone you love. Take a step back and you'll see a wider sky.

Then why do you have an apple, I have an apple, exchange it or one person and one apple, you have a thought, I have a thought, and the exchange is two thoughts, these two meanings are almost the same, understand this, you also understand love.

Because + is equal and two-way, there is no difference between who is active and who is passive, and the love you are talking about is a single-initiated action word.

And it is impossible for you to love others, others must love you, or a beggar falls in love with a princess, and the princess has to love him, there will be no princess or prince in the world for a long time, and if two people fall in love with one person at the same time, will that person come back and love both at the same time?

Because emotions and data are different.

This problem is not very complicated, because love is a vector, and quantity is not directional, so 1+2=2+1

That is, love has a certain directionality.

I love you, it means that the starting point of this vector is me, and the direction is pointing to you, you love me, indicating that the starting point of this vector is you, and the direction is pointing to me, so from the equality relationship of vectors, they are absolutely not equal!

The teacher said that 1+2=2+1, so does I love you mean that you love me? (1+2=2+1 to love is equal to being loved, so the equation does not hold).

1+2=2+1 is the same as launching: you love me + I love you = I love you + you love me. Launched: Love equals love.

Landlord, the reasoning conditions you gave are incomplete, so the conclusion of the reasoning is wrong, and the correct answer is as above.

Feelings are also math problems, it's just that the payment of feelings can not be weighed with exact measurements, who loves more and who loves less, who pays more and who pays less, in fact, everyone is saying that love is dedication not taking, but no one can be open-minded and do not care about emotional gains and losses. Because it is just blindly giving and blindly trying to love, but there is no interaction and resonance, all the work is equivalent to useless work, and the equation of 1+2=2+1 cannot be realized. Love must be calculated and cared for, because we have to achieve the balance of the equation, the balance of the heart.

We don't have the confidence to endure inequality in love.

(Known: I love you.)

Proof: You love me) = > (i.e., proof: If I love you, then you love me.

This is a false proposition, which in itself is untrue. If it is necessary to prove its correctness, it is proved as follows: (1) I love you = me + love + you; Obtained by the law of addition commutation:

I love you = me + love + you = you + love + me = you love me.

2) I love you = I *love* you; From the law of multiplication commutation: I love you = I * love * you = you * love * me = you love me.

3) Take three square pieces of paper and write "I", "Love" and "You" respectively; Let's prove it below: press "I love you" to take out the pieces of paper and fold them in turn, and then take them out again, that is: "You love me".

4) I love you = > I chase you = > you are tempted = > you love me; Gotcha: I love you = > you love me.

5) From the axiom of temporality, "Time proves everything", it can be proved that "you love me" from "I love you".

6) In fact, I don't think the above proof method is very rigorous, and the following introduces the most rigorous proof method: (n) Proof: From the axiom of self-deception: If I love you, then you love me. Certification.

First, prove that 1+1=2

Proof process: According to Piano's five axioms, the following is described in a non-formal way: 1 is a natural number; For every definite natural number a, there is a definite successor a' ，a'It is also a natural number (the successor of a number is the number immediately following this number, e.g., the successor of 1 is 2, the successor of 2 is 3, and so on); If b and c are both descendants of the natural number a, then b = c; 1 is not a successor to any natural number; Any proposition about a natural number can be proved to be true to n if it is proved to be true to the natural number 1 and assumed to be true for the natural number n'It is also true, then, that the proposition is true for all natural numbers. If 0 is also regarded as a natural number, then 1 in the axiom should be replaced with 0.

A more formal definition is as follows: a Dedekin-Piano structure is a triplet (x, x, f) that satisfies the following conditions: x is a **, x is an element in x, f is the mapping of x to itself, and x is not in the range of f.

f is a single shot. If and satisfies: x a and if a a, then f(a) a then a=x

This axiom is in line with the basic assumption about natural numbers ** derived from Piaro's axioms: the set of natural numbers) is not an empty set and a one-to-one mapping of the direct successor elements of a a within n; 3.The ** of the successor element mapping image is a true subset of n; 4.

If any subset of p contains both elements that are not successors and successors that contain each element in the subset, then this subset coincides with n. It can be used to prove many common theorems that are not known to them!

Proof: The successor of 1+1 is the successor of 1, i.e. the successor of 32 is 3

According to Piano's axioms

Available: 1+1=2

Then, I love you equals that you love me and 1 1 2 have nothing to do with a dime.

Then, the condition for proving that I love you is that something in you is attracting me, and the condition for proving that you love me is also that I am attracting you.

To sum up, I love you is a true proposition.

You love me not necessarily a true proposition.

If a disfigured person or a person with AIDS has a love for you and says that he or she loves you very much, you love him or her as well. Do you think your assumptions are valid?

Not necessarily, if it had to be such a law, there would not be such a high divorce rate.

Isn't it equal, for example, 521 equals 125?

Feelings can't be compared to task things, saints can't explain it, feelings are very complicated, but very simple things, but no one can tell what is going on, only those who have loved know that it is so happy, so painful, so soulless, you go and try it, good, thank you

1+1=2

I love you = you love me (symmetry equals).

9 to 3 said, besides you, it's still you. - The love of mathematics.

It doesn't mean that if love is 1, if you account for 60%, then the other person can only account for 40%.

It does not mean that there will be a gain and a return, and if you love each other more, it does not mean that the other party loves you as much as you love him.

Who said that one plus one must be equal to 2, a bottle of water plus a bottle of water is equal to several bottles, everything has its indefiniteness, don't use old-fashioned dogma to set.

Hehe, a lot of things can't be explained.

You have the answer to this question in your heart, so why bother asking someone else? There are two words for "fairness" in the world because it caters to them; It's really unfair, but it's actually one of the principles of heaven. As the old saying goes: only by facing yourself clearly can you face others better.

It is equivalent to a positive and negative absolute value symbol, the difference is equal, the result is equal, but do you think it is really equal?

This is not a proof question, and the true proposition is both positive and backward. So you're a false proposition. Not established!!

I don't think sincerity will necessarily pay off, but insincerity will certainly not be rewarded.

Basically, it won't be equal. It depends on how you look at this issue, give and don't ask others to reciprocate you, so that you can really get your love.

You have the right to love her, but must she be obligated to love you?

This really doesn't equal

1+1=2, exactly and I love you = you love me not is an equation I suspect that math is not well learned.

Write it this way. I represent A, love represents B, you represent C, I love you" translates to the formula: ABC

You love me" translates into a formula: CBA

lz, you say, abc=cba?

This is a math multiplication problem that elementary school students know.

Obviously not equal.

Even if it is 1+1=2, it is unbalanced.

If you think of 1+1 as two people.

2. Look at it as a person.

LZ, do you say, two people equal one?

Innocent, childlike love follows the following principle: "I love because I am loved." ”

The principle of mature love is: "I am loved because I love others." ”

Immature, childish love is: "I love you because I need you." ”

And mature love is: "I need you because I love you." ”

Excerpt from Fromm's article].

lz, I hope that you and her love are all because you love each other and need each other, not because of your own needs, to love each other, otherwise it will only become a demand.

I wish LZ and LZ's girlfriend happiness

I love you = you love me, not equally.

But you love me = I love you.

Of course yes, hehe, your 1+1 will be equal to 3, a happy family of 3, and you will be together forever.

If you love her, you don't need to dwell on this kind of problem here, hehe, just show your sincerity, if she loves you too, then it will naturally understand.

You ask him, do you believe in my love for you? As long as you believe it's true.

Love is inherently unfair, so why use the equation? If you have to balance everything, then you can still be together?

Love is love, if you don't love, you don't love, what's there to think about? Did you do something? Let's review it

As long as I really love you, it won't be so difficult.

Uplink: 1 + 2 = 2 + 1

Downlink: I love you = you love me.

Horizontal batch: heart-to-heart.

When hearts are in touch, I love you as much as you love me!

1+1=2 Me + You = Happiness.

I wish you all happiness.

If you love her, she will love you, love needs a sincere heart to take care of the person you love the most, cherish it for your hobbies, happiness and sweetness are your best life.