A number not always represent the same thing, therefore 1 not always equal 1.

I accept the number definition, as I cannot think of a better one.I only brought out apples and kids as a demonstration of how we were thought, and how wrong that could be.I proceeded to only use one type of object for this reason, to not confuse my argument to be; that if you had 1 to represent apple in one side, and 1 on the other side to represent knife (as my opponent pointed), 1 and 1 wouldn't be equals since apple and knife aren't the same.Like my opponent pointed, apples and knives are both quantities of an object, so the number 1's would be equal to quantity of objects. Therefore, I'm in agreement with this, and is not part of my argument.My point is, can division give the result of anything but, of how many times did you divide? Can division give you the result of quantity of objects? If it can be done, there must be a way to show this being done, with whole numbers as well as fractions, with the same rules.If by having 4/2 I count 2 of the result as being a quantity of an object, then if I have 1/2 / 1/2, I should also be able to count the end result as a quantity of an object. So please show me, how do I get 1 object if I have 1/2 object divided by 1/2 object. How about 1/4 / 1/4, which is also 1, but unlike 1/2 / 1/2 adding won't work.I notice your use of; "pro advances arguments that do not use math properly to show what is happening", and other places you also call my methods to not use mathematics properly, even know I active the same result by my method.*remember I'm accusing math to be flawed, not that I believe to be right, just that is how I'm seeing at the moment, so my demonstration was an alternative way to do math; by using the dividend as the object being divided (of which I use an apple), and the divisor as a container. By doing so, I showed I can always active the same result, using the same method, with both whole numbers and fractions.This is also the reason of why I said you must show flaws in reason, and in reason only, and not in mathematical statement since if I'm right that there is a flaw in mathematics (which I hope to be wrong), using a flaw argument to prove a flaw cannot work. Therefore, the rules of mathematics is into question.CON wrote; PRO questions;Do you mean, one 1/2 of an apple divided by one 1/2 of an apple? It feels very confusing.1/2 is a unit in itself, just like 1 is just 1 unit, but 1/2 is not the same as 1. You use addition to obtain 1 apple here, but yet with whole numbers you never use any addition to demonstrate the same thing. Can you show me this same example using 1/4 / 1/4 and 4/2?I try to demonstrate that using addition doesn't work, as you cannot do the same with whole numbers, but perhaps you believe it can be done, of which why you ignored what I said and attempted to demonstrate that adding was plausible.CON wrote; PRO questions;Why did you feel my statement was incorrect? What is the math problem that you see? You feel there is a problem, but the result is the same. It looks like you can see from my point of view now. You see an incorrect statement, but a correct result. This means that, just because result remains the same, it doesn't mean something was done properly, just like I still don't understand why one would correlate 1/2 / 1/2 and 1/2 + 1/2. Now you feel my pain.Why did I send the 2 apples to each apple you ask? Remember, I said 1 and 1/2 is one set, but 2 isn't. To divide 4 equally into 2, I must take this into account.If I count 2 as just 1 set, I will just send the 4 apples to that set, and the result would be 4 and not 2. So if I had 4 apples, and I just send to 2 apples, that would show the 2 apples being part of the same set, and all 4 apples would end in the same place.The 2 apples must act as two different sets to active the result desire.On the method I presented, this does not need to happen, since 2 is a quantity that the container holds, so I can split the container into two sets if I like, or I can just send the apples to the 1 container and count how many times I was able to fill it up. In both ways the result remain the same.I do not get your use of grouping, by saying group of two you count 2 as being just 1 set.So to make clear and simply, what I'm saying from my resolution is.Use "apples" to start from the equation 1+0--------------1/2 / 1/2, use "apples" to start the equation <<(1/2 / 1/2).From what I see; from one side you start with apples and ends with apples represented by 1(which is one whole apple), on the other side because of division, you start with apples, but the result is not apples, so 1 does not represent 1 apple. Of why 1+0=|=1/ / 1/2.I see the end result being how many times you divide, so I see 1 as being, 1 (whole) time. I cannot see how you can get 1 whole apple out of this.So all you got to do, is show me, how exactly do you get half of an apple to be divided by half of an apple and get the result of 1 in apples? If you want to continue to show me this by adding, then also do it using 1/4 / 1/4.Therefore, the only time I see 1 not equal to 1 is when you have an equation using the operation of division that equals to 1 in one side, and on the other side any of the other basic operations to also equal 1. I feel that both 1's from both sides cannot be equal since they represent different things. So basically division is not comparable with the other operations since they cannot active the same purposes. So it goes beyond 1=|=1, of why I told you, I need you to prove me wrong.Conclusion.By going point by point, my opponent missed my reasoning, and have of his round was filled with misinterpretation of what I was trying to convey, and assume something that in the begin of this round I state to be completely untrue.By going point by point, my opponent missed that half of my previous round, as I was just trying to demonstrate that, by going by what such of teacher would say, it was unreasonable to use two exactly objects. I showed that by trying to follow such of reason, and point to the problem in the end. If my opponent saw such of flaw in reason in the begin half of my second round, then this proves he sees that by going by the teachings of a teacher, such of argument as using the same object for both the quotient and the divisor won't work. Therefore, the quotient and the divisor cannot represent the same thing.By going point by point, and missing what I did in the beginning, my opponent just use that same argument as I previously show not to work.I would ask my opponent to re read my second round again, and try to address those mistakes, and take my second round as just one whole point, instead of assuming there are many points I was trying to make. Sure there are many points, but all those points are to try to make you see my initial point, and not per se to be taken as many points. So read it completely, if you then find that because of one of my points my reason was wrong, then you could rewrite my argument in the same fashion, but fixing my mistake, which should show along the way that it was a mistake. Kind of like I did, by starting to something I did not agreed with, just to show how it wouldn't work.Since you made those mistakes, attempting to go point by point in this round was just an attempt to show you those mistakes, and since they were made, it was really confusing to follow. So before "Conclusion", my round may even look like an off topic reply, but I was just trying to understand your reasoning, and give you more information behind my.