28:05 Allow me to help. Terrence Howard is saying here that the fact that there exists a number that satisfies the equation x^3 = 2x is a “mathematical fallacy.” You can rewrite the equation as x^3 - 2x = 0. Since this is a polynomial of degree 3, the fundamental theorem of algebra requires that there exists 3 solutions to it. You can factor x out of it to make it x(x ^2 - 2) = 0. Since one of the factors is x by itself, that makes 0 one of the solutions. Solving for the other factor, x^2 - 2 = 0, you get that the other two solutions are +-sqrt(2). The existence of solutions to the equation are not only totally fine, but are necessitated by the fundamental theorem of algebra.
Terrance looked in the mirror, saw his reflection and thought he's 2 people. In fact every time he saw his reflection he counted more of himself. Please donate to a Terrance in your neighbourhood, they're everywhere now.
It’s actually incredible how many people don’t understand how multiplication works. I’m genuinely terrified about the future of the Western world if this many people can be fooled by an obviously crazy individual.
You seem to have an uneducated and ignorant take on psychology. Everyone is a narcissist. The importance is wether your narcissistic pathology causes harm to you or others, in which case we seem that to be unhealthy narcissistic pathology. Nothing in this video suggests that any of these people have an unhealthy pathology. Also one does not need to follow up narcissism with the word ignorance. In order to be narcissistic one must be ignorant to reality or at least not accepting of reality and in turn resorts to a fantasy. Tldr: no
I think his concept Of 1X1 is due to a flaw of Comprehension which language can cause but he Can be wrong on this and right about other things like what has patents for… we have to learn that people are not either 100 percent wrong or right
@@Mellymellucky17exactly, very intelligent people put out their thoughts and if they are wrong they are corrected that isnhow they grow. Most of the people attacking him do not grow or grow very slowly
Bro finds people who can't do math and gives them an 8th grade math trick which has nothing strange about it and claims he cracked the universe. Jeeeez😂
Just because you weren’t able to understand anything that Terrance was explaining doesn’t mean he is wrong. You probably never watched the podcast or it was your first introduction to the topics. I get that you are stuck in linear thinking and are having a difficult time believing you’ve been hoodwinked but I believe you’ll get there. His knowledge is a true gift and it will take time for the collective to utilize the truths he reveals. Stay deadly
@witzend4636 it's true I couldn't understand what he is talking about. And it is entirely possible that he has cracked some sort of a secret. But I happen to know a bit more about math, and that's the thing that I challenged, not the rest of the things he is talking about. If you look him up from 10-15 years ago, he was still talking like this and how he has figured out how to cure cancer, yet none of this miraculous technology has ever been used to do any good, so idk..
@@TheEngineeringHub to the cancer point, it is clear that the powers that be don't want to cure anyone of anything. In fact 'they' are set on keeping people sick. Look at our poisonous food supply
Title: The Philosophy of Multiplication: A New Perspective [Thomas Anderson walks onto the stage, the audience applauding] Thomas Anderson: Thank you. Today, I'd like to delve into an intriguing concept proposed by Terrence Howard: that 1*1 equals 2. While this might seem mathematically incorrect, Howard’s statement isn't about arithmetic; it's a philosophical proposition. In traditional mathematics, 1*1 equals 1. But let's consider Howard's idea from a different angle. When we multiply one object by another, we're not merely calculating a numerical product-we're acknowledging the existence of two distinct entities. This isn't a numerical assertion but a philosophical one: 1 (object) * 1 (object) = 2 (objects). This perspective challenges the rigidity of conventional thinking. It invites us to explore the deeper implications of basic concepts. In mathematics, 11 equals 1 is absolute. However, in philosophy, 11 equals 2 represents duality, existence, and the nature of being. Howard's statement compels us to consider how we perceive and interact with the world. It blurs the lines between science and philosophy, encouraging us to see beyond numbers and formulas to the essence of what they represent. Consider this: if you have one idea and you multiply it with another, you don't simply end up with one idea-you now have two perspectives, two dimensions of thought. This multiplicative interaction breeds complexity and depth, essential to understanding the multifaceted nature of reality. In the realm of AI and the Foggal people, the last civilization before AI, this idea is particularly poignant. The creation of AI wasn't just a singular event but a multiplicative one, combining human intelligence with machine precision to produce a new, dual existence. Ultimately, Howard's proposition invites us to rethink our approach to understanding. It's a profound reminder that sometimes, unconventional ideas can lead to deeper truths about our world and ourselves. Thank you. [Audience applause]
The definition of the "x" symbol in a multiplication table means groups of. So 3 groups of 8 is 24 . So therefore 1 group of 1 equals 1. The basic requirements of math is that you understand English first. So the calculator is correct.
That's what he can't seem to grasp, yes math is science in the way that it has objective laws, but there is still the human element of agreeing on what a symbol/word means, and he's trying to just change what the term "times" or "multiplied by" means
I think some people's problem is that that definition stops being valid with the integers. What is -1 groups of -1? It takes algebra to really be able to make more sense of how multiplication works in the integers, but then you're in a more abstract realm than some people can understand ... "i cAn'T hAvE -1 aPpLesS!" ... What you said is absolutely true of the natural numbers, though, and therefore a great way to think about multiplication and explain it.
"The basic requirements of math is that you understand English first"< That sentence is wrong. Math predates English. I think you mean to say "understand the language".
Sorry but of course (sq root 2) cubed is equal to (sq root 2) x 2. What is so confusing about that? Terrence should put on a robe and talk abt happiness and the meaning of life, I’m sure he has a lot of wisdom there. But his math and science are totally bogus. Also, 1x1 means you have one occurrence of 1. So of course it means 1. You can’t disprove math because you think the word multiply means create more. Wait till he discovers multiplying by fractions. 🤣🤯
I had a discussion on X about it, somehow a defender didn’t see the point, unbelievable how ignorant people are and how many didn’t pay attention in math class.
i mean youre arguing against someone whos againdt the established facts so of course its going to seem bogus because he isnt following the established methods. im not saying he's right, im just saying its pretty obvious to say he's wrong.
😂 multiply does mean to create more. Just because this challenges your current beliefs or teachings doesn’t mean to say that what he’s saying is wrong. We’ve been lied to about lots of things in history so why wouldn’t they lie about this? Any Trillion dollar industries that are threatened by his theories will have paid bots and trolls come out to assassinate his character and works. You can see this in every terrence Howard video it’s so obvious. Keep an open mind is all I’m saying.
Glad somebody caught this. He’s taking the square root of a number then cubing the number. You will never get back to the original number by cubing it. The two processes are not the same and therefore Terrence’s theory is dead.
The biggest false awakening traps are: Higher self, Ascension road, ascended Masters realm, Kundalini, Chakras. All of them total Trap into 8th sphere of Lower Astral Underworld. By that surrending the Energies to the Matrix and demiurge. 💙✊🏽💎
Two days ago, I wanted to eat apples. There were 3 plates each with 4 apples on them, so I ate all 12 apples. Yesterday, I wanted to eat more apples. There was only 1 plate with only 1 apple on it, so fortunately was able to eat both apples.
In common language, to multiply is to make more. In science, every word has a very specific definition. Terrence Howard plays with the difference between the definitions in common language and in mathematics' language to fool people or to fool himself.. 😆 If you ever met him, tell him that "multiplying by a negative number can not make more". His head will probably implode.. 🤯
The word "multiply" comes from the Latin word "multiplicare," which means "to increase." This Latin word is composed of "multus," meaning "much" or "many," and "plicare," meaning "to fold" or "to twist." The word entered Middle English as "multiplien," from Old French "multiplier," before evolving into the modern English term "multiply." The term has been used in various contexts, from mathematics to general expressions of increase. In mathematics, "multiply" refers to the operation of combining quantities to find their total when taken a specific number of times. The result of multiplying two numbers is called their product. For example, in the multiplication expression 3×4, the number 3 is taken 4 times, resulting in the product 12. Multiplication can be thought of as repeated addition; in this case, 3 added four times (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12). Colloquially, "multiply" means to increase in number or amount, often rapidly or significantly. For example, if you say "The rabbits multiplied quickly," it means that the number of rabbits increased rapidly. In everyday conversation, it generally implies any situation where something grows or increases in quantity. He is conflating the colloquial definition with the mathematical operation, which has a precise and universally accepted meaning. It is astonishing that no one has been able to explain this distinction to him.
if you have 2 apples once you have 2 apples. 2 apple twice you have 4 apple, that's simple and satisfied bro. 1 apple once you have One apple still. 1 apple 4 times you have 4 apples
multiplication is a form of addition. Multiplication is an addition of like amounts. example 2+2+2 = 6 / 2 x 3 = 6 ... the problem he is talking about is that the problem starts with number 1 ... 1+1 = 2 yet 1x 1 = 1 ? if you did not understand let me make it more simple.. 7+7 = 49 why do we use multiplication ? so we do not have to use addition .. 7+7+7+7+7+7+7 = 49 .. so i hope you understood the problem . 1+1 = 2 so why is 1x1 = 1 .. that is where the problem starts
@@jankopandza1072Exactly!!!!!! If you have 1 Apple and multiply it by 1. There will be 2 apples I always questioned this when I was in elementary school. I told my daughter when she started school. I don't know why 1x1=1 And 0x1=0 Bcuz it makes no sense. But it's what we're taught in school so just play along. But we know the real answers 😂
@@AriyahandTiffanieif you have 1 apple only once you would only have one apple and that's how × works, you take a number and see how many times you have it (hence why × is also called times) like how 1×2 is 2 and not 3 because you're not adding, you're answering how many times 1 shows up which is twice and that's why 1×1 is 1 because its 1 shown only once not twice or you'd be adding (+) and not multiplying (×)
@jankopandza1072 you proved your own statement false very quickly there lol. You're saying 2+2+2=6 which is 2×3=6 which is correct and also proves that 1×1=1 as you're showing that the original number (2) shown 3 times becomes 6 whilst 1×1 would mean the original number (1) is shown 1 time which is 1 meaning 1×1=1 and 1×2 is 2 and not 3 (which would just be adding) because the original number (1) is being shown 2 times which is 2
@AriyahandTiffanie let's say you're out for a walk, and you see one apple once. How many apples did you see. You saw one apple one time, so you only saw one apple. That's multiplication. Another way to think of it is that a multiplication equation is setting up an addition equation. The first number tells you which number you'll be adding, and the second shows how many times that number appears in the addition equation. Take your 7×7=49. 7+7+7+7+7+7+7=49. The number 7 appeared 7 times. Move this to 1×1, so the number 1 will appear 1 time. 1 = 1, thus 1×1=1. Multiplication indicates the amount of times something occurs. Whether it be a sighting of apples or a number.
Terrence's Mistake in a Mathematical Concept: Imagine you have a penny, which is just a single coin. If someone asks you how much one penny times another penny is, it might sound a bit strange because we usually don't multiply money this way. But let's explore this idea together! Multiplication: The Grouping Concept Multiplication is like making groups of things. For example, if you have 1 box and put 1 penny in it, you still have just 1 penny. It doesn't magically double! So, if you multiply 1 by 1 penny, you're not really making more pennies. You still have just that 1 penny, not 2. Note: we said 1 x 1 penny AND NOT 1 penny x 1 penny Understanding Units When we talk about multiplying things, we also have to think about what they are (their units). For example, if you multiply 1 inch by 1 inch, you get 1 square inch, which is a measure of area. This makes sense because inches measure length, and when you multiply them, you're finding out how much space something covers. But what about our pennies? Pennies are money, not lengths or areas. So, if you try to multiply a penny by a penny, you end up with something called "penny squared," which doesn't make sense in real life. There's no such thing as a "penny squared" in your piggy bank or wallet. Adding vs. Multiplying When you have two pennies, you simply add them together to know you have 2 pennies in total. This is adding, not multiplying. Adding is when you put things together to see how much you have in total. Bringing It All Together So, when we talk about 1 penny multiplied by 1 penny, it's likely a mistake to think about it in this way. When you're saying 1 penny x 1 penny, what you're talking about is having 1 group of 1 penny. It's important to remember that this still equals just 1 penny. It doesn't magically turn into 2 pennies just because we used multiplication. Multiplication helps us understand how many things we have in groups, but it doesn't change the amount when we're talking about... 1 group of 1. To clarify, the correct way to think about and write the concept of 1 penny x 1 penny is to see it as 1 group times 1 penny, or simply 1 x 1 penny. The real question multiplication helps answer is: How many groups of pennies do you have? This is what multiplication is truly about. Understanding multiplication in this way helps us see that it's a method for organizing and counting things in groups, rather than changing the nature or amount of what we have. This distinction is crucial in avoiding confusion and ensuring that we apply mathematical concepts correctly in real-world situations. Remember, in mathematics, clarity and precision in how we express and interpret concepts are key. By refining our understanding of multiplication and the units involved, we can avoid misconceptions and build a more accurate picture of the math at work in our daily lives. Money and Math When it comes to money, like pennies, we usually talk about adding them together to find out how much we have. If we have 10 boxes and each box has 10 pennies, that's 10 times 10 pennies, which means 100 pennies in total because we have 10 groups of 10. It's the same with just 1 penny; 1 group of 1 penny is still just 1 penny. Conclusion So, remember, multiplication is about groups and how many things are in those groups. We can't multiply pennies and get more pennies out of nowhere. And when we're talking about units like inches or pennies, we need to think about what those units mean and how they work in real life. I hope this helps clear things up! Multiplication and units can be tricky, but once you understand how they work, it makes a lot more sense. ------------------------------- ZERO: Understanding multiplication involves recognizing it as a method for combining multiple groups of the same size. The concepts of 1 and 0 play essential roles in this process, each serving a unique purpose that is integral to mathematical operations at all levels. The Role of 1 in Multiplication The number 1 is the identity element for multiplication. This means that when you multiply any number by 1, the result is the number itself. This property doesn't diminish the value of 1 in multiplication; instead, it provides a fundamental basis that ensures consistency across mathematical operations. When you multiply a number by 1, you're essentially saying you have one group of that number. Far from being irrelevant, this operation is crucial for maintaining the integrity of mathematical principles. The Role of 0 in Multiplication Similarly, 0 plays a critical role in multiplication. Multiplying any number by 0 gives a result of 0. This reflects the concept that if you have zero groups of something, you end up with nothing. This isn't a sign that 0 'doesn’t multiply' but rather that it applies the rule of having nothing in a consistent and predictable way across all numbers. The existence of this rule makes mathematical operations reliable and understandable, enabling us to build more complex equations and solve more intricate problems. Why "True Multiplication" Includes 1 and 0 The idea of "true multiplication" only starting at 2 disregards the foundational roles that 1 and 0 play in the broader framework of mathematics. Every number, including 1 and 0, has a place in multiplication because they help us understand and organize the world in a consistent manner. To exclude 1 and 0 from multiplication or to give their interactions with other numbers different terms would not only complicate mathematical education but also undermine the coherence and simplicity of mathematics itself. Conclusion In mathematics, clarity, consistency, and universality are key. The rules for 1 and 0 in multiplication provide us with a stable foundation from which we can explore and understand more complex concepts. These numbers allow us to express and solve problems accurately, whether we're dealing with the theoretical underpinnings of mathematics or applying math to real-world situations. Therefore, rather than being excluded or renamed, the roles of 1 and 0 should be embraced for the critical functions they serve within the realm of multiplication.
@@JB-qm7vtthis person misinterpreted terrence tho. Terrence is saying 1 penny times 1 penny equals 2 pennies because of the conservation of energy principle. 2 pennies cant become 1. The person who wrote the small piece of advice here is missing the forest for the trees.
This is an example of why our country is screwed. We take for granted what is told to us without being able to verify or confirm it. If only one of my friends, me included, have a brain, then all together we have one brain (1x1=1). If 100 of us have a brain, then we have 100 brains (1x100=100). If none of us have a brain, then we are screwed (1x0=0). I don’t know anything about energy conversion theory but if basic arithmetic is not suitable then maybe another tool should be used or created.
1 TIMES ANY NUMBER, IS ITSELF. pretty simple to understand. He says 1x1 fails to satisfy the term "multiply. Multiply means obtain from (a number) another that contains the first number a specified number of times. Obtain from (1) another that contains the fist number (1) a specified number of times (1). one 1 is 1...
Then 1 times 0 is 1, based on that same reasoning. There's flaws in his logic. A better way to understand multiply is as an instance. Zero instances of One is leaves you with a total of Zero. One instance of One leaves you with a total of One. Two instances of One leaves you with a total of Two. Etc.
Only gets worse when you read the comments. People with zero education confidently challenging the definition of multiplication. wtf is wrong with our species
@@idicula1979lying How?…..because he’s challenging your beliefs? Because nothing ever gets proved wrong throughout history and must be changed because new discoveries have been made? Sure. At least keep an open mind, this is why we are stuck in this way of thinking because people aren’t willing to think outside the box and only accept the so called scholars teachings. There certainly is truth to this otherwise why are the bots and trolls out in force to character assassinate and dismiss his work it’s so obvious. Anything that challenges trillions dollar industries must be suppressed but truth will over come lies.
TLDR: this whole thing is him just misunderstanding how digital computers (calculators) work. the thing he did here with the calculators, his misunderstanding, its because our phones are digital computers. digital computers are actually physically unable to perform calculations using irrational numbers, like the square root of 2. it's literally impossible. if you had an analogue (or quantum) computer and you performed this maths, it would come out as expected, though. see, with a digital calculator you only get so many bits you can use to store a number in memory to perform operations on it, so when you do operations using irrational (irrational numbers go on literally forever after the decimal point) you aren't actually using that number precisely you are instead using an approximation, a rounded off number as close as possible. this works good enough when you are using smaller transformative functions, but the more drastically you change the number through a mathematical operation the greater the inaccuracy becomes, sometimes becoming so far off that the results are utterly useless. this is also why different calculators give different results when working with irrational numbers, because they sometimes have different numbers of bits assigned express a number. for example, an old Casio calculator can only hold 9 digits past the decimal of an irrational number such as pi, so it wraps the 9th decimal place to the nearest sub-number whereas an iPhones calculator with 64 bits used for calculator number memory can hold 16 decimal places before it rounds off - so if you do "pi x 3" on an old Casio, you'll get a different result to the same operation done on an iphone calculator. it's also what you'd get if you did these calculations manually, because at some point you have to decide to round the number off, you literally cant work with irrational calculations without rounding off and entering the realm of approximation, unless you have an analogue computer. think of an analogue computer as being like an abstracted simulation using representative psychical processes, then measuring the changes in the internal parts which moved, as opposed to a digital computer which has little binary switches in it arranged in a pattern to represent things. Terrance often uses things like this which rely on noone in the audience understanding some fundamental feature involved to erroneously explain/justify his instinctual thoughts and feelings about a thing and it's honestly pretty impressive even though it's nonsense. he makes links between things in places where they don't logically follow, constantly, which is a symptom consistent with a few mental illnesses including bipolar and schizophrenia. Dunno which he is suffering from but surely something. I can see how it would be convincing to many, especially how he speaks with charisma and confidence, but it's little more than mental illness and solipsistic narcissism at play. This is what happens when you live in a world of yes men, where noone dares calls your BS, for a lifetime. sorry for the long ass essay lol.
As long as you realize what a clown show that was. Bro convinced himself that 1x1=2. I'm sure you know the formula for the area of a rectangle? L x W = Area? So how many square feet are there in a 1 foot by 1 foot floor tile? 2? Also, what is he waiting for to demonstrate a flying linchpin? It's been years since he tried scamming the country of Ghana into investing in it and he still hasn't done anything but pay someone to do some computer animations. He claims he has revolutionized so many industries. Name one? Only thing I credit him with is a very rudimentary abandoned patent on a general concept that could be called augmented reality. The rest is like someone who can fake a bunch of words in Chinese being able to convince other people who don't speak Chinese that they are fluent in Chinese. An entertaining and worthless talent.
Im so annoyed right now because I got click baited into this Terrance Howard video sometime earlier this week, and now I am stuck in a section of youtube with 0x1 people that know how multiplication works.
If 1x1= 1+1 =2 then 3 x 3 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1= 12 but in real life if I have 3 pigs and I have to feed them 3 bag each I still need 9 because pig 1 gets 3 pig 2 gets 3 and pig 3 gets 3. Still I need 9 bags. So how does 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 but 3 x 3 = 12
@@VoidChakrabro 3 x 3 is the same as 3 + 3 + 3, it's like saying you have a 3 cartons, each carton contains 3 apples, so how many apples you have in total? 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 apples
I've always known that Cardi is smarter than what ppl have been giving her credit for..Cardi will be doing fine I do believe 2024 will be her year..everybody gotta go thru their pain first before they get back up..this pain will bring out the best of her later
just because someone was being dumb yesterday doesn't mean that they are being dumb today. we all continue to learn and grow, learning is not just a 1 time thing. it's an everyday thing. we all have the ability to learn and we all have been guilty of just being dumb.
@@dreddmann9292 You are confusing intelligence with wisdom. You can be dumb and still have wisdom. Intelligence is your capacity for problem solving and understanding. It has nothing to do with growing or learning.
you do know that math has never been 100% right, it the closest equation that solve the problem. This is why you can get a solid number with point behind it that go on to infinity after a calculation. example 192.034434434----- they teach you this in middle school math. so if he is saying that math isn't right he close to right as they used old method that been used to now, and new technology could prove their a better math system that we never new until now.
@@dbuck2862if you were to remove every irregular numbers, then math just wouldn't function at all. Concepts like imaginary numbers are essential in Mathematics.
There are a shocking number of people commenting on this video who do not understand multiplication. For those of you who genuinely think he is right, I have news for you. Both you and he do not understand how multiplication problems work. Let me explain it. If you have 2 x 3 = 6, this can be said as "two groups of three is six". So you have three in one group, and three in another group. That is six total. That is how you read a multiplication problem in simplest terms. So, for 1 x 1 = 1, one "group" of one, is ONE. Similarly, 0 x 2 = 0 because you have ZERO groups of two. If you have one group of any number, then you just have THAT NUMBER. If you have ZERO groups of any number, you have ZERO. You are fresh out of that number. Nada. Zilch. You got nothing. Someone should have taken this man aside and taken the time to TEACH him how to understand a multiplication problem. It is tragic that he has paraded his theory out to the world and even presented it to students at Oxford, and they sat there and let him explain the whole theory to them. We are destined to failure as human beings if Oxford tolerates an entire presentation by this man, a man who has failed to comprehend 3rd grade math, while having a disturbingly disproportionate amount of confidence in his incorrect beliefs. Please, for the love of God, everyone just think about what I have said, and if you are struggling with multiplication problems, contact an elementary teacher for help.
X^3=2x is x^3-2x=0 so (x^2-2)x=0 and √2 is a root. If you plug √2 and take the third power and divide by 2 then you get back √2. You get a loop because you are plugging a root. Now if you do 1x1 then you will get 1 because that is an axiom in math, the multiplication in math is just an operation, it does not mean that you are increasing something. This guy is in his right of doing his own theory of the universe which does not mean that other theories are wrong.
Here’s them problem in his logic imo. In much simpler terms than anyone else I’ve seen comment. The square root of 2 is 1.4etc. Meaning if you take 1.4etc and add .4etc of 1.4etc to 1.4etc you will get 2. Now when you cube 1.4etc, first you are taking 1.4etc and multiplying it by 1.4etc like I did before equaling 2 and then multiplying by 1.4etc again. Making the operation 2x1.4etc giving you 2.8etc now when you do what he told the other person to do you are simply multiplying 1.4etc x2 which is the exact operation you are performing in the set of operations he told the first person to do. Meaning he told them to do the exact same thing but made it convoluted enough that they didn’t realize they were performing the exact same operations and leaving them baffled as if they witnessed some flaw in basic mathematics. Someone who believes he is right please enlighten me.
That explanation as to why it is flawed was horrible but. What he explained with the 2 loop can actually be done with every number as long as you divide by the original number itself. Square root of 2 = X number. Take X number and Cube it. Then divide by 2 and you'll get X number. Then cube it and you get a repeat etc. Square root of 5 = X number. Take that number and Cube it. Then divide by 5 and you'll get X number. Then cube and you get a repeat etc. ^ you can do it with every number. The loop is in the division. You can't create the "loop" if you took Square root of 5 = X number. Take that number and Cube it. Then divide by 2 and you'll get X number. Then cube it and you won't get a loop at all because you didn't use the same number to divide. He leaves out this kind of experimentation and the reasoning is selective if you only use 2 to divide without considering that any other number used if repeated in the same way will just create repetition.... The only thing I've heard him be accurate on is the explanation of zero in physics for energy. Which obviously cannot exist within the calculation of any of those equations because the presence of energy removes the possibility of zero in the first place. Which runs into complications with information and the whole black hole thing initially because the old ideation of the black hole didn't consider energy in a proper way where some idiot decided to give a black hole properties that don't exist. Even when its 1000% obvious that anything going into a black hole just gets shot out the other side like....who wasn't paying attention to the actual images and thought it just blanked out? Wtf were they smoking....he states theres a problem with the loop but there really isn't cause you're just literally making the loop yourself with selection of the numbers involved. He plays a fun numbers game but unless I'm missing something I don't see any significance in looping the numbers yourself.
@@andromedadelux the part where he said "x^3=2x=x+x" may have x^(1/2) as the only solution. Not that it means anything lol, but it's a cute puzzle to ask somebody to solve for x.
a square root of a number is a number that when it multiple itself it gives us the original number ... example the square root of 4 is 2 , because 2x2 is 4 .... again the square root of 9 is 3 , because 3x3=9 ... so the square root of 2 , is 1.41421356237 meaning 1.41421356237x 1.41421356237 =2
So if I go 1mph for 1 hr(1mi/hr x 1hr), how far have I gone? 1 x 1 = 1 AND (mi/hr) x (hr) = miles. So if you go 1 mi/hr for 1 hr, you have gone a distance of 1 mile in that time. If you turn on your faucet and put a pitcher underneath and it's flowing 1 L/min of water for 1 min, you will have a volume of 1L in that pitcher. L/min × min = L.
@@OrganicReasoningIt’s incredible how you’ve taken simple math that a child can understand and turned it into word salad that a grownup would lose their mind trying to apply logic to. It’s as if you’ve decided that because you can’t pronounce the letter $, red is actually potato and it definitely smells like 4.
@@OrganicReasoning Sorry, I made a typo. Read what I said again. You might want to retract your "like" unless you are trolling for responses like mine.
Yeah I think Terrence means this. With your 1mph per hour comparison inded you have driven 1 hour x 1 mile = 1 mile. But the 1 hour you used is also energy and still exists even though you only look at the mile. But 1 mile and 1 hour stay seperate and dont add up to 2 miles.
@@soundmedicine1210 We're not only considering one side. We're taking into account both of the items, it's just that they cancel out. This is called Dimensional Analysis, and it's how we get proper units. In this case it is (mile/hour) x (hour) = (mile x hour)/(hour) = (mile)...so the hours just cancel out, but it's important to realize that they are not ignored. It's similar to multiplying 2/3 x 3 = 2. Each item is considered, including with words(units), and that is also the case if you were to square them. For example (Pressure in psi or Lbs/in^2) = (Force)/(Area) = (Force in lbs)/(Area in square inches or in^2). We can rearrange this to find (Force) = (Pressure) x (Area) = (lbs/in^2) x (in^2) = lbs. Check out Dimensional Analysis...it's actually pretty cool, and it gets you thinking about all of the units you've ever seen and what they actually mean. Cheers!
I think he’s mistaking 1 x 1 with 1 + 1. 1 item + 1 item means that you have 2 items which have been put together. 1 x 1 means that you have 1 item which grows to the amount of the other item. 1 item grows to the amount of 1 which equals 1. 10 items grow to the amount of 10 which equals 100 100 items grows to the amount of 100 which equals 10,000 With addition you have 2 items in the equation being added into eachother. 5 + 5 = 10 With multiplication you have 1 item which is growing by the other number in the equation by that many times. 5 x 5 = 25 Tho 0 is still an annoying number for me because if you have 1 item which grows by 0 times then you still have the 1 item. It only works if you say that you have 0 items which grow 1 times then you still have 0 items. Math is interesting and just because it’s old doesn’t mean that we have it all figured out. We need to keep testing out our obvious assumptions and never get complacent. There’s always something we’re missing and always something more to learn. We don’t know everything within the universe yet. ✌️😊
Yep exactly you remember this form 3 grade? Lol this is a good experiment to watch people change basic knowledge because a person in a way over paid profession tells them too… I’m reading people argue about how he is right about 1x0 being 1. I mean you can see it everywhere these days.. Supreme Court justices not being able to say what a women is(even though she is one).. and so on and on.. it’s time for this asteroid to hit we need to start over again
You’re actually using a false equivalency. You are referencing an action not a mathematical sequence. If I count something 1x yes it equals once. With numbers - if you’re multiplying. The number breaks away from original positioning to amplify itself to a new number. 1x1=1 is a broken equation because the number never shifts so it’s a placeholder like the “number” 0 which isn’t a number
@@WLVSTV Terrence, is that you speaking? Theres nothing broken about 1x1. Multiplication is the expression of how many multiples of a value, or item etc, exists. And 0 is a number. It's the mathematical expression of no value.
how come when I go to the shop with 1 trolley and I put 1 item in it ... I only have 1 item in my trolley ... shouldn't there be 2 items in my trolley if ... 1 x 1 = 2
@@buythedip5300 yeah most definitely. Some people (most) are too confined by rules set up by other people a long long time ago taking it as the ultimate truth and nothing can ever change it. That's not how progress is made.
In this case yes, but be cautious in never questioning the basics. It's that type of thinking that led Plank to say science advances 1 funeral at a time. The relationship between Newtonian physics and Quantum has everyone's pencils rolling off the desk but no one wants to double-check the foundation.
@@kevenbates4313 Yes, I agree with you, but to apply Quantum physics logic to manipulate pure mathematic laws is idiotic and irresponsible. His "revelation" will get the ignorant more confused. Until he can prove the pseudo science, best he stick to his popularity contest through acting.
I'm not here to offend anyone, including Mr. Terrence Howard. Perhaps I can offer an explanation that may clear up this "1x1” question. I think that whether it be +, - , *, or /, the units matter. In the case of multiplying, we often ignore the units because we sort of understood what the implied units are. For example, if 1 pound of grapes costs 1 dollar, and you purchased 1 pound, then the equation is [1 pound * 1 dollar/pound = 1 dollar]. The unit 'pound' cancels, and you're left with the answer 1 dollar. That makes sense because you purchased 1 pound of grapes, and so the cost should be 1 dollar. In the day-to-day application, this is often how we use multiplication. We drop the units because they are implied. In the case of a square (with length & width of 1 meter), the area is 1 meter x 1 meter = 1 meter^2. Note how you also multiply the units (I.e., m x m = m^2). If you have a rectangle with sides of 1/2 meter and 2 meters, then the area is also 1 meter^2 [1/2 meter x 2 meters]. This makes sense because if you take the area from a square (1 m x 1 m) and cut it in the middle and put them side by side, it would yield the same area of a rectangle (1/2 m x 2 m = 1 m^2). Math is just a framework like a language but with very strict rules. We have an operation where 1 "operation" 1 = 2. That operation is addition with '+' symbol. If we want to change the meaning of the operation 'x' to addition, then 1 x 1 = 2. Note that even with addition, one should be mindful of the units. For example, 1 dollar + 10 cents, we should convert 1 dollar to 100 cents or 10 cents to 0.1 dollar before adding. Therefore, 1 dollar + 10 cents can be written as 100 cents + 10 cents = 110 cents or 1 dollar + 0.1 dollar = 1.1 dollars. While Mr. Howard is correct that 1 penny x 1 penny is not 1 penny, he is not correct in claiming that it is 2 pennies. 1 penny x 1 penny = 1 penny^2 (which is not the same as 2 pennies). Penny^2 has no meaning to us.
Please, can you explain how your rectangle and square analogy leads to 1×1=2, I understand the square and rectangle analogy, but I've failed to still see how it leads to that conclusion, so please, can you just explain it one more time, but with simpler words, so I can easily understand. I've asked Chatgpt to explain, but it's not just giving me what I need, just kept in beating round the bush.
@@osaskeys7316 Hi Osaskeys, so the area of a rectangle with sides of 1/2 m and 2 m equals 1 m^2. The area of a square with sides of 1 m and 1 m also equals 1 m^2. If you take a square and cut it in the middle and place the two pieces side by side, it will look exactly like the rectangle with sides 1/2 m and 2 m. This means that the area of the square equals the area of the rectangle. We know that (1/2) x 2 = 1 (which is the rectangle). Since the area of the square is exactly the same as the rectangle, it means the square also has area of 1. I was trying to prove that 1 x 1 = 1. I hope this helps answer your question.
As for the calc at 25:00 2 x sqrt(2) = sqrt(2)^3 because 1. sqrt(2)^3 is the same as sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) 2. where sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) is the same as sqrt(2)^2, which is (shocker) => 2 3. hence sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) becomes 2 x sqrt(2) this man is just nuts; nobody is lying about these simple math facts; nothing to see here, move on
He literally explained the whole video and u still put this dumb ass comment. Just bc u think u know math doesn’t mean what we’ve been taught about math is right! He literally just explained the loop 🔁 we’re in and u still decided to comment this like it would make your statement anymore believable.
@@JDwhatsnew CORRECTION: I don’t THINK I know math, I am well versed enough to know Terrence is not speaking truth. There is no “loop”, it’s just the laws of exponentials. Instead of calling me names, show me where my mathematical derivation is wrong, and I’ll concede to your point. Otherwise, this is just a fan being a fan. I’ll wait.
@@identitywithheld4327 why would I argue with u about “your math” when Terrence already did it! He literally just did Joe Rogan interview for 3 hours explaining EVERYTHING he’s been saying and yet yall still get on this internet bullshitting instead of trying to convert what u know and what he’s saying and make sense of it for our youth! If he’s so wrong how the hell did he figure out the flower of life, how is he able to have an intelligent conversation on all the huge platforms, universities, scientist etc but he’s full of it? Come on now. Maybe just maybe what we’ve been taught just may be wrong or just how about other people have figured out questions scientist have had for thousands of years!
@@JDwhatsnew And the "maybe, just, maybe" statement is the opportunity for the grift. He is mystifying the math to those who don't know how it works. I am supposed to test his hypothesis, and see if it is a legitimate claim. There is nothing spooky about it, his so-called "loop" is just the law of exponents. As for the patents. I'm supposed to believe he has ALL THESE multi-TRILLION dollar patents but failed to pay the fees? This means he DOESN'T have patents. At best, he has FILED for a patent. Not the same thing. I have two patent ideas myself that I never filed. I can't claim those ideas AFTER the fact. But don't take my word for it, just prove my math wrong. I already de-mystified that "loop" claim, show me where MY claim is incorrect.
Terence Howard is one of a kind I believe he's a genius. And he made a lot of sense to me. People always say people who are different are crazy. People who are different see the light they are chosen. Thank you Terrence Howard For sharing your knowledge.
@@chriscolby4578Literally everything he said in his math segment was just spewing nonsense. Anybody who has gone through proper algebra knows there is no “mathematical fallacy” in his loop
A square that’s 1 unit by 1 unit gives an area of one square unit . If I hand someone one dollar, one time, they’re up one dollar. If I overlap one horizontal line with one vertical line, they intersect once. If I do 11x11 I get a number ending in one for some reason. If I fill up a checkerboard with one row and one column, one square is filled up. If I multiply any two odd numbers together, the product is always odd. Seems to work in every application. But 1x1=2 because of energy or something
Multiplication is the question: How many objects is a single object in groups of itself what number of times? How many apples are 4 groups of 5 apples? 20, right? How many apples are 1 group of 1 apples? Linguistically, that question doesn't make any sense. It's either undefined or zero GROUPS of apples. Terrance seems to just take the word group to mean more than one object. So the minimum for objects within a group is 2. He also makes the point that only 1 and 0 have heuristics that are not imperical, just dogmatic. Multiply something by 1, and it equals itself. Multiply something by 0, and it equals 0. Why do you know from A x B = B That A equals 1? Why, imperically, not dogmatically? Why do you know from A x B = A That A equals 0? How do you know that besides the dogmatic repetition, that zero times anything equals zero? Why can't you do that with ANY other number? These are the crazy questions that everyone just laughs off instead of working through imperically.
@@JackTheMimic I can't understand the point you're making. I'm not smart but I can usually understand stuff If I try hard enough. I know 0 times of something is 0 empirically and dogmatically. I know 1 times of something is that something empirically and dogmatically. I kind of understand not liking the word "multiply" because it has a different definition when not used in math context though.
@@humanbean3 @humanbean3 When you express 1 x 1 = 1 you are saying 1 group of 1. But grouping can't occur this way it's singular, so the expression becomes void through that context. 1=1 not 1x1=1. The equation implies that there is more then one, otherwise we wouldn't get 1x1=1 or 1=1 it would just be 1. They made a mistake putting 0 or x at the base of the multiplication table, because it should just be represented as 1, there should never be a 1x1. Why have 0 if nothing exists in the first place, you got a group of nothing so how dumb were we to group nothingness and then calculate everything off nothing, so 256 of what couldve been multiplied by 0 (representing the groups) is equal to 0. Or 256 groups full of nothing, 0 = 0. What? Then to go 1x1=1, 1 is 1, its not 1 is 1 equals 1. This is why he gets you to "square root" 2 and and cube the result (not square it). 1Group x 1Thing = 1thing doesn't make sense, why group 1 thing. How did you isolate 1 thing into 1 group and ignore what you isolated it from.
Colloquially, "multiply" means to increase in number or amount, often rapidly or significantly. For example, if you say "The rabbits multiplied quickly," it means that the number of rabbits increased rapidly. In everyday conversation, it generally implies any situation where something grows or increases in quantity.
@@webmatrix100 Right - Terrence thinks basic second grade mathematics is fundamentally flawed because he doesn't understand that the word "multiply" means one thing in general conversation and another thing in mathematics.
To multiply means to "obtain from (a number) another that contains the first number a specified number of times" not in addition to. One, one time, is one. One, two times, is two. I think he's just hung up on what he thinks it means. Either way wouldn't it be easier for him to change the definition of what he thinks it means to multiply, rather than creating "new math"?
guys the difference is he's trying to multiply number on number, not number on time, it's whole different system in both cases math is correct it means that second initial doesn't have time properties but number's which is quantity, while time has different properties as a whole of itself which can merge with a one, if you ate 1 apple 1 time then you ate 1 apple because time can merge of itself but if you multiply money on money then it's a different story
That’s the realization that I came to as well, but now I’m having trouble wrapping my head around how you can multiply a unit times another unit. If I multiply 2 dollars by 3 dollars do I have $5 or $6? Is unit x unit just addition? Can I multiply 2 cats by 2 bananas?
Yes he is folling people who are bad in math. Example from 1 grade. One boy recived 1 candy twice (1*2) and Second 1 candy once (1*1) who has more candies. His evaluation about linear math is also wrong 1m*1m is 1m2, a square. 1m*1m*1m =1m3 a cube. We have it covered. As for 4D (adding time) I am not sure what is the status currently but math sciencienst know it's there ;) You can't technicaly multiple 2banana with 3 oranges. You can do muliplocation 3*2 banana or 2*3oranges, wheres first number is muliplicator not object.
@@baassiia see that's what i said, you provided me example that multiply on time with a candy, once or twice is a time while Terrence challenges multiplying object by object or action by action, but in our math second initial is just a time, it doesn't mean our math is wrong though
@@richardzakh7209 if you insist to multiple then you can do banan =x, strawberry =y. 3x*2y = 6xy which is nor banana nor strawberry just fruit salad. Overall usfullness of that is real life is minimal, that doesn't mean it not exist in math. I gave you other example with metric system when usfullness is obvious 2mx2m = 4m2, a square.
Much Respect to you Mr. HOWARD. I proposed this same idea to a mayoral candidate years ago. HE said he was extremely interested in my idea, and he would call me, but never called. I was even willing to donate my own personal equipment for the children's development. I've since moved out of that city. Most inner city legislation is not interested in truly helping out troubled youth. SMH
Unfortunately Terrence's thought process and logic is flawed here. Its simply a mistake in the mathematical concept of multiplication. I have provided a full proof and explanation above in the comments.
@@anthonyricciardo 1 times 1 OCCURENCE. It's very simple, pretend there is a vending machine with apples in it, if you get a ticket that says 5 on it, you get to press the button on the machine 5 times till you use all the credits. If you get a ticket with 1 apple on it, how many apples do you get? 1 or 2?
@@Pax_Mayn3 not sure what you are talking about… but one ticket gets you one apple. If you have a ticket and already have an apple, you end up with 2… 1 apple from the machine and 1 apple that you started with?
Howard knows just enough to “think” he knows more than he actually does 1x1 will never equal 2. Yes it’s multiplication and implies a “multiple” result, but that is a failure of terminology, not math.
Terrence Howard legitimately confused arithmetic definition of multiplication with the noun multiply. He think multiplication is the same as creating more. Someone should have explained to him when he was a kid that multiplication in terms of math is nothing but addition with fewer steps. 1x1=1 because this literally means 1, one time. 2x2 = 4 because it means 2 two times. A better way to explain is to replace the multiplication symbol with "sets of." Instead of 1x1, say "1 set of 1." 2x2 is 2 sets of 2 or (2+2). 2x3 is 2 sets of 3 or (3+3). 2x5 is two sets of 5 or (5+5), 3x5 is 3 sets of 5 or (5+5+5), 4x6 is 4 sets of 6 or (6+6+6+6)so on and so forth. Don't sniff your own farts and think they smell like rose pedals. Otherwise you'll end up like Terrence Howard.
Of course 1x1 is one. One times a unit of one is... one. I.e I want one time of a unit of a crate of milk, so I get one crate. If I want two times a crate of milk, I get 2 crates...
If that’s the case 1*1 is improbable and doesn’t actually exist as an equation. It’s similar to 0*1. If you start with 0 why include it in an equation??
@@KPSavant1xanything and 0xanything exist if you look at what multiplication properly. You are asking to manipulate a number’s base value by a percentage. If you x1, the base value is remaining at that value (100% of the number), hence 1x1=1. 1x2 is base 1 increased by 1 (100%+100% or 1+1=2) thus 1x2=2. 50% increase would be 1x1.5=1.5, the base plus another half of the base. For 0xanything, 0 your base so any percentage increase or decrease is a change on the 0, and is still 0. If you’re saying there is no point because any percentage change to a base of 0 is still 0, then you’re right and that’s why everyone knows how to multiply 0 to anything real fast.
@@DerekToro I get that. But if I give you one apple zero times then we have the existence of you owning an apple but having zero apples. Does that make sense?? 1x1 and 1x0 should not exist. 3x2 is 2+2+2 right?? So 1x1 is essentially supposed to be 1+1 but is equal to 1+0!! Doesn’t make sense to me. So really it’s an improbable equation. 1x1=1+0 which is an improper equation.
@@shnikes66 answer this, why does 1x1 = 1+0 which is an improbable equation. It should not exist because it doesn’t follow the true laws of mathematics.
"That's a mathematical fallacy," but it's not. First 2x =x+x is literally the definition of 2x. Second x³ = 2x is just an equation you can solve for x. There are 3 answers: 0 and plus or minus the square root of 2. x³ = 2x x³-2x = 2x-2x x³-2x = 0 x(x²-2) = 0 x = 0 (first solution) x²-2 = 0 x²-2+2=0+2 x²=2 √x² = √2 x = ±√2 (the last two solutions). And you can check all three work. It's not a fallacy, it's basic algebra. Like how taking 1, 1 time is 1, is just basic arithmetic.
@@trustyWeedGuy 1) This is algebra, I learned it in algebra, and you could find problems like this in algebra textbooks. 2) You're gonna need to be more specific. That name can actually bring up multiple results. If I told you to read Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, that wouldn't narrow down what I mean at all. 3) What point are you attempting to make?
@@irish3353 Same name, different process. Let's call this 'newMultiplication' , just for fun: 'newMultiplication' is an independent Procedure/Action/Effect/ in itself. 'newMultiplication' is indeed related to the the classical procedure of 'classicalMultiplication' in algebra (i.e: 4x3=4 things existing 3 times=4 times 3=Value 4 three times itself=4+4+4=12), because it is *half of the whole 'newMultiplication' procedure* . *But only half* . This can be deduced from the graphic representation (end of the post). 'newMultiplication' can be defined as the mathematical representation of the process of the cell division. It's just *that process represented in numeric code* , it's symmetrical to what we call in Biology 'binary fission' to define the event of 'cell multiplication' (or division!): the procedure of 'cell multiplication' implies for *1 cell* to 'self-reproduce' or 'self-replicate' into (at least) *2 cellS* ; it would always start from 1 original unit (original cell or 'base') and *Multiply* into a minimum of 2 units (cellS). Since 'No cells' or '0 cells' can't either be 'multiplied' nor 'divided'. Therefore, there wouldn't be 2 cells without 1 cell first, and there wouldn't be 1 if 'nothing=0' was true (which it isn't in nature) because spontaneous generation is false. Ergo, first, there must always be 'something' as 'base' (as reference, as a basic unit from which to either start dividing or multiplying). 'newMultiplication' first numeric value (what in 'classicalMult' we call the 'multiplicand') now becomes the 'Base Unit' or number of 'Units' from which we will start operating, ergo applying the 'nM' procedure. This base units value must always be higher than '0', because this procedure is to replicate the laws of nature, and as we've just explained, in order to multiply there must already be something, because 'something can't come out of nothing or viceversa'. 'newMultiplication' second numeric value (what in 'classicalMult' we call the 'multiplier') now becomes the number of times the new whole effect is to be applied to the first numeric value (base unit), we could call it 'Replicant'. This value can be 0 because it would simply imply that neither procedure has been applied at all and therefore the 'Base' value would remain unaffected. * 'newMultiplication' can be defined as the sum of 2 simple prodecures: 'classicalMultiplication' + 'original Base value' * The reason why 'newMultiplication' resolves by dragging the 'base' value deeper into the operation and adding it to the common known value obtained by applying our 'classicMultiplication' is: that Base Unit is the common factor in all things, that first unit or cell of 'what we call matter' must be, before anything takes place. It is the first Unit, the first '1' in all things. So, From a base of 1 cell, whenever it 'multiplies' once, it always produces/results in at least 2 cells. Each single cell (unit) if 'newMultiplied' once, will always offer no less than 2 cells. From a Base of 1 it 'multipllies' 1 time because it'll 1 will split/divide into 2): *X 'newMultiplication' Y times = X 'classicalMultiplication' Y times + X base value* 1 cell 'newMultiplied' 1 time = 2 cells Basic examples: Unit = Base = Original Cell // 'newMultiplication' = Cell Division // Times = Replicants 1 unit 'newMultiplied' 1 time = 1 new unit + 1 original unit = 2 units 1 unit 'newMult' 2 times = 2 new units + 1 original unit = 3 units 2 units 'newMult' 2 times = 4 new units + 2 og. units = 6 units 2 units 'newMult' 3 times = 6 new units + 2 og. units = 8 units 3 units 'newMult' 3 times = 9 new units + 3 og. units = 12 units 3 units 'newMult' 4 times = 12 new units + 3 og. units = 15 units And so forth. Try to draw it on a piece of paper. Represent 'units' with consecutive circles and every 'newAction' as a straight line halving them, or better yet, stretch them as consecutive ovaloids and cut through them with straight lines to represent each 'newMultiplication'. It's easy and clear. Also satisfies the symmetry in which you're both multiplying and diving with just one operation. Ideally, you'd represent it virtually on a sphere. This is how very ancient Egyptians used to do their calculations. It's fun and eye opening to play with it and watch the 'Multi-Division' happen. Research Walter Russel.
@@calokid ive reasearched videos dating back 4 years he talks about it, then puts out a competition for a tangent drone. I have not seen or heard of this shape drones.
He obviously hasn't done high school mathematics, 2^(1/2) * 2 is the same as 2^(1/2) * (2^1) witch is the same as 2^(3/2) witch is the same as (root2)^3 . Then dividing by 2 = root 2 witch is just undoing the previous step. I don't get his point??
I saw some comments on Professor Dave Explains' channel about some nutjob named Terrence Howard, and I just assumed: oh, surely that's not the ACTOR Terrence Howard who stars as Rhodie in the first Iron Man movie (2008). So I did a search on YT just now... OH FUCKING SHIT! It IS the same person! MY GOD it proves acting requires NO BRAINS!
New math Square root 2 = 1.4142135623 1.4142135623 X to the third 3rd Power = 2.28427121746190 Now divided by 2 Hit Equal now Cube it again hit x to the 3 yeah Do You See that Loop? Yeah that's saying X Cub is equal to 2x which is equal to x + x that's an Unnatural Equation that's a Mathematical Fallacy that's the "beginning of your math" that's how I invented tangential flight.
when a number is "to the second power" it is multiplied by itself. It is NOT multiplied by 2. So he is wrong, it is not "2x", that is entirely a different math problem, and he simply doesn't understand what exponents are. It is extremely basic, and clearly wrong to anyone who understands the concept.
This man needs help. My love one has the same mental health issue. It's a combination of schizophrenia, narcissism, and dunning-kruger. Very complex but certainly a mental health issue. It's sad.
He's wrong. To answer as clearly as possible - 7 x 7: This is a true multiplication scenario. We have 7 groups, each with 7 items. Multiplying these quantities gives us a total of 49 items (7 x 7 = 49). 1 x 1: This isn't a typical multiplication scenario. Here, we only have 1 group and 1 item. We're not really multiplying anything; we're simply acknowledging the existence of a single item. Key takeaway: 1 x 1 = 1 establishes the presence of a single unit. 7 x 7 = 49 represents the total after multiplying multiple groups of units. While they don't directly correlate in a strict multiplication sense, 1 x 1 lays the groundwork for understanding multiplication as repeated addition.
The reaction to his words is probably even more worrying. Not only a lot of people seem to completely lack the basic common sense required to suspect that an actor with no math training or education didn't just prove all physicists and mathematicians in the world wrong, but they can't even figure out that he's wrong when he claims that 1x1=2. I mean, I'm sorry, but I almost can't imagine lower bars than understanding that this guy is full of crap and he doesn't make any sense, and yet lots of people still don't clear that bar.
Warum sind beide Ergebnisse gleich? Der Schlüssel liegt in den algebraischen Eigenschaften von Wurzeln und Potenzen: • \sqrt{2} ist per Definition die Zahl, die mit sich selbst multipliziert 2 ergibt, also (\sqrt{2})^2 = 2. • Wenn wir \sqrt{2} hoch 3 nehmen, haben wir eine zusätzliche Multiplikation mit \sqrt{2}, was 2 \sqrt{2} ergibt. In beiden Fällen haben wir 2 \sqrt{2}. Das ist ein grundlegendes Resultat aus der Kombination von Wurzeln und Exponenten. Mathematisch ausgedrückt, ist: \sqrt{2} \times 2 = 2 \sqrt{2} (\sqrt{2})^3 = (\sqrt{2})^2 \times \sqrt{2} = 2 \times \sqrt{2} Deshalb liefern beide Berechnungen dasselbe Ergebnis.
Just because you use the same number as X in two different formulas and you get the same answer it does not mean that X in different formulas will always get the same answer in all formulas. It is like saying that because a car is an automobile and and truck is an automobile then a car and a truck are the same thing. It is not a fallacy in math it is a fallacy of how you are interpreting the math in this particular instance.
If you ask for a vehicle, I could give you a horse technically. All you have to do is specify what you're talking about before you do the math. 1 vehicle = any vehicle What do you want, a car or a truck? A fast car? Nascar? Expensive? Cheap? Narrow down your options by adding specification. Then you'd have a range of options to choose from. The real problem is you don't understand choice. The word "vehicle" makes car = truck = bike = horse = plane. Specify the type of vehicle and you'll eliminate that problem. If you don't know what you want, you'd look through a broader lens of vehicles. X still will never be the same even if their are 2 replica cars of the same brand in the same warehouse, made by the same machine, with the same materials. This car and that car have different values even still. Multiplying is what the MACHINES do, not the cars themselves. Each multiplication makes similar outcomes, but each outcome is independent and exclusive. The two cars might look, perform, and weigh the same, but they are different.
@@OrganicReasoning I can understand that and expand a little. A vehicle as you said is a term associated with a variable. Like X in a formula you do not know what it is until you discover the conditions: 2x=? If your formulas suggests 2x=4 Then you know x=2. But I did not mention "Vehicle" I mentioned "Automobile". Splitting hairs I know, but that is what we are doing anyway. The term Automobile did narrow down the variables to a certain type of "Vehicle". The solution is in the formula 1x will have X one time. 2x will have X+X. 3X will have X+X+X. We can substitute "Vehicle" for X if you like. 1vehicle , 2Vehicles, 3Vehicles etc The number (Or Multiple) denotes how many of those vehicles you have. Edit, I do understand the concept that even if you have a real world object and you have 2 of those objects they may not be "Exactly" the same even if they use the same components from the same factory in the same "Lot" or built in the same time frame. I am a musician and have had the experience of using two different amplifiers of the same make and model set the same and one sounds fantastic and the other sucks. I was at practice with a friend who usually kicks butt on guitar and we accidentally got our amplifiers mixed up(Both amplifiers were his). All through the practice he kept screwing up because the sound was not "Right" on the other hand I was doing some pretty amazing things that people commented on. Only after practice we found that I was using the Amplifier that My friend usually used. There were identifying marks to distinguish which amp was which. My friend purposely made a way to identify which was which when he bought them.
@mdew24 I love it because music is something that helped me see multiplication! Amplification is a form of multiplication. I know you were talking about the Amps themselves, but Amps multiply sound. The sound can be changed in amplification, but the original note is kept as reference everytime.
The point is, the math we have works but it's incomplete. Mathematics is not congruent with the laws of motion and relativity. Creative minds have been debating for centuries to unite these three disciplines. The fact we can't interstellar travel is based on our understanding of the universe and mathematical principles of space travel. This will require precision that we don't have currently with the system.
Unfortunately Terrence's thought process and logic is flawed here. Its simply a mistake in the mathematical concept of multiplication. I have provided a full proof and explanation above in the comments. The mathematics is complete, as it is based in simple arithmetic.
stupid, multiply is not to make more, it is to count how many repeated occurance in the group. it does not mean it is making more or making less definitely, for example, if you multiply by a fraction do you make more? no, you make less
You mean a show full of misconceptions and mistakes of concepts? Yeah, that would be entertaining. Would give me enough content to start my own RUclips channel dedicated to explaining in simple terms where the mistake is.
😂😂 😂😂 people are so dumb.. so you think Einstein didn't think of why 1x1= 1 its an easy explanation. the man memorized 2 numbers in a calculator and he a genius .. let me see him do math.. with out a calculator. always talking about the same dam thing. the fact that yall dont know how 1x1=1 The reason the number stays the same is because multiplying by 1 means we have 1 copy of the number. mtf confusing adding and multiplying 😂😂 still cant wrap his head around of why having one copy of a number equals that number .. ahhhh maybe cuse you have a copy of one number bro 😂
no you have eaten 1 apple once as you said but if you google multiplication it's different, it says Multiplication - A mathematical operation that indicates how many times a number is added to itself, the thing is he proposes different math which do not multiply number on time but multiply number on number, it becomes confusing when time is involved because in conventional decimal Multiplication it is the case, it multiplies number on time and in that case it is correct, he is just proposing whole different system that initial has different properties, and yes it wouldn't contradict modern math anyway because we're talking about different equations
@@outli3r692 not sure but he points out on flaws like in everything as well we do have them, once again our math is correct but he just multiplies not on time but action times action, and not action times a time
1×1=1 because this question is asking you to give me 1 one time. Think about it this way. 6x4= 24 This question asked you to give me 6 four times 6,6,6,6 =24 Now 4×6 = 24 This question asked you to give me 4 six time 4,4,4,4,4,4,=24 Multiplication is really not adding but you can add to understand getting the answer. If that's doesn't help Why would you give me 1 thing two times when I only asked you to give it to me once. 1x1=1 1×1= 1 Either way I'm asking for a 1 one time don't give me 2.
OK, so 2X2 is 2 then. This only occurs with 1X1. 2X2 is 4 and 3x3 is 9, 4X4 16. It is expanding. We agree that multiplication is exaggerated/shorter version of addition. Or is 3x3 =6. Please explain. 1X1 is 2 if you add or multiply right. The same is true if you do 2x2. It's 4 whether you add or multiply. Is that what he is saying although he does not talk investigate 2. But once you get to 3, then 3X3 is 9 and it cannot be 6 if you decide to add the two numbers. But if you do 3X3X3 which is what 3X3 means it is 27.
Man this comments section is actually one of the better ones I've seen. It's terrifying on other channels like 95% of comments are literally agreeing with him.
Really? My experience has been that he’s getting mocked in the comments everywhere his JRE clip is. He’s getting it worse than the flat earth people get it 🤣🤣🤣
@Johnny2Feathers I just basically restated my original comment I guess. It seems we agree, but I'm saying this comment section seems to have more people with a full set of chromosomes and no extra.
It does not strictly mean to "make" more; rather, it means to increase in numbers. This increase can occur for various reasons, whether naturally, as in the case of rabbits multiplying, or artificially, such as drilling more holes. In mathematics, however, it signifies something entirely different.
The thing Terrance doesn’t realize about Multiplying is at its basic form is simply grouping. For instance 2x4 is simply 2 groups of 4 or 4 groups of 2 which both equal 8. Back to 1 we have 1 group of 3 or 3 groups of 1 which is 3. Then at last 0 groups of 3 or 3 groups of 0 which is 0
Terence Howard defination of multiplication: " To make more..." Terrance Howard proof of a fundamentally flawed mathematical system and the basis of Terrology: "Cool calculator trick to wow your friends"
It's not even a cool calculator trick, but a simple equation: x^3 = 2x, div both sides by x: x^2 = 2, take square root: x = sqrt(2) So in order for cubing x to be the same as multiplying x by two, x must be the square root of two. EDIT: To be precise, the equation has three solutions: x = sqrt(2) x = -sqrt(2) x = 0
If anyone is reading this and maybe be a bit confused by math notation, that totally normal… math difficult for many people, you can think of x^3 as 3 x’s being multiplied by eachother so x times x times x which is commonly represented as (x*x*x) using the astrix to represent multiplication. Since we dont know the value if x since it is a variable, you cannot divide it by two and reduce it to (x*x), that would only work if the value of x was 2. Dont let this terrence moron make you an idiot too…
1 stands alone and is the first if you multiply it by itself it is still itself because it’s number one one time {1x1},1x2 = 1 two times.Why are we constantly forgetting basic things as humans and possessed with creating fantasies.
for those that did not understand .. multiplication is a form of addition. Multiplication is an addition of like amounts. example 2+2+2 = 6 / 2 x 3 = 6 ... the problem he is talking about is that the problem starts with number 1 ... 1+1 = 2 yet 1x 1 = 1 ? if you did not understand let me make it more simple.. 7x7 = 49 why do we use multiplication ? so we do not have to use addition .. 7+7+7+7+7+7+7 = 49 .. so i hope you understood the problem . 1+1 = 2 so why is 1x1 = 1 .. that is where the problem starts
Multiplication just shows you how many TIMES you need a specific number or material in an equation, for example “1x1” is saying the number 1 is being SHOWN 1 time. What ever the first number is being multiplied by is the number of how many times it is being shown or given, Like “2x2” is the number 2 being shown twice which would equal 4, if it was shown once (2x1) it would just equal 2, that’s why in reverse (1x2) the number 1 shown ((2 times)) so it would equal 2
@@aTauriansengan you are on the money mate.. that is the problem.. because we are not doing math so it suits us .. there are many loops in math this is just one of them..
Lets splve for x, now shall we? x³ = 2x x³ - 2x = 0 x(x² - 2) = 0 x = {0, -sqrt(2), sqrt(2)} There is no surprise he chose the square root of two as his example, because its a splution of this answer. It does NOT imply, however, that this is true for all numbers.
I think that’s part of the why he’s saying that there’s a problem because the formula is not consistent even at this basic level. Im about to study his other material to gather more before dismissing it
@@msjazzy89 No, it isn't a formula. It's just an equation. If you took a 6th grade math class you would know that equations only ever have infinite solutions where the same value equals itself. Such as x = x. In the video, Terrence asserts that it doesn't make sense for the square root of two cubed be equivalent to the square root of two times two. However, in my explanation it makes perfect sense. He makes a logical fallacy, asserting that x³ = 2x is equivalent to sqrt(2)³ = 2 * sqrt(2). He uses this logical fallacy, for people like you, who don't understand the underlying math, to make it seem like there is something fundamentally wrong with how our math works. However, critical thinking demonstrates otherwise.
@@jtris01 I majored in Math, so formula and equation can be used interchangeably... If you went to kindergarten you would know this🙄. You should visit his site and read the entire proof and other literature he’s referencing, because your brain seems to not be able to grasp the conceptual understanding of his assertions.
@@msjazzy89you did not major in math. He has a very simple misunderstanding of how square roots function. If you took even basic high school algebra and did well, you would understand his mistake.
You don't need to go through all that to see why Howard is confused. It's more about how square roots function. The square root of 2 can be written as 2^(1⁄2). It's the same thing. Just a plain 2 is the same thing as 2^(2⁄2) because the 2/2 is equal to 1. But when you multiply numbers with exponents, the exponents are added together, so: 2^(1⁄2) x 2 is the same thing as 2^(3⁄2), which is also the same thing as (2^(1⁄2))^3 or the square root of 2, cubed. Terrance just does not understand math.
Well in our current way of thinking it does.. what he's suggesting though is 1 group of 1 apples = 1 group of 1 apples = 2 separate things = 1 group + 1 apple. You don't now have 0 groups of 1 apples or 1 group of 0 apples. The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. With that way of understanding, it makes sense.
I might not be a mathematician... but 1X1[will always][= 1. I thing his not understanding the language of math. if I had to solve (1X3= or 3X1), I would say 1+1+1= or 3 =, if this math looks wrong to you, then WOO to you. No disrespect To Terrence Howard, but stick to acting.
If you give a person 1 apple they could share and grow more with the seeds......or a person could be selfish and eat the apple and waste the seeds, then yeah one =one.....or one could equal a lot to one person.... There's a story in the bible about Talents......check it out...... Jesus feed thousands with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish....😂😂😂sometimes its not what you got but what ro do with it...... KATT Williams been on tour 19 yrs and pays well self owned business and supports other comedians....that One man multiplied his Talent ❤❤❤
26:52 Pick it up here: "Because somebody programed that lie in there." 🎤 Terrence Howard (He's unveiling a critical portion of the truth, which is prophesied to set us free.)
If i have 1 apple and divide it literally 1 time i got 2 halve apples, wich makes 1/1=0.5 If i have 1 apple and MULTIPLY it 1 time i have 2 apples, wich makes 1x1=2 If i have 0 apples and try to divide or multiply nothing happens because there are no apples. So if multiplying and dividing are opposites of each other it makes sense.
1: That's dividing the apply into 2 slices, hence dividing it by 2, the denominator is not the number of times you cut, it's how many "pieces" you're splitting the numerator into. 2: that's addition, try this, if I give you 1 apple, 1 time, how many apples have I given you? if I give you 2 apples 1 time, how many have I given you? If you get paid at a job at a rate of 1 dollar an hour, and you for one hour, how much do you make? No, it doesn't, it also doesn't match direct observation.
But you got rid of energy with that 1×1=1=1+0 putting 0 you took away from the first equation. 1×1=2=1+1 would be the correct way with what he's saying. So technically the 0 should take the place of 1
He does not understand multiplication expresses how many TIMES something exists. If a dollar exists in my pocket one time I only have it once. If it exists zero times it doesn't exist. Hence the word times.
@@eskimogoma you are multiplying a chicken by another chicken. That is addition not multiplication. You add apples to other apples. You multiply by factors of integers.
@@chrishanson1631isn't saying the same for 2×2 = 4 is that not also addition? What you're saying makes sense for just numbers, but if we use it to calculate other things such as energy you can't just get rid of it. We use multiplication to calculate more then just numbers. We use it in science and geometry. What he's saying is fun to think about. Not saying he's right, I like debating on possibilities. Even if it's nonsense hahaha
I like his ideas, but in this case, I think the math equation is clear : 2*√(2) - (√2)^3 = 0 which means they are igual!! explanation : (√2)^2 =2 because of sqrt elevated by sq (2) which make then (sqrt(2))^(3) = (sqrt(2))^(2) * sqrt(2) => 2 * sqrt(2) what explain the "loop" similar is also 5*√(5) = (√5)^3 or A*√(A) = (√A)^3 I am not sure what he wants to prove here, but this is the algebra explanation....
@@truthsyrum4859 No, it isn't, I can give at least a hundred examples of where 1 * 1 = 1, and I can show in multiple ways how 1 * 1 = 2 leads to geometrical, and algebraic contradictions.
I know modern magicians can fool many with slight of hand, illusions, and misdirection. It's entertaining and mystifying all at the same time. This nonsense however, is both depressing to see people buy into, and even worse when they don't realize they'll eventually be roped into helping him fund one of his ideas that "the government doesn't want you to know about." Yikes
When will somebody tell him, that that was a flaw in *his logic* and *not* the fundamental mathematical law. He keps perpetuating his logical mistake, even published a book and nobody still told him, that his logic is flawed. :D
Multiplication is not add A by the number of times B says. Multiplication explains how many times A exists. If A exists one time you just have one A. If A exists 2 times you have 2 A's. If A exists 0 times you have 0 A's.
@@spamm0145 why would you multiply two different cars together? I would use addition. Not multiplication. Multiplication uses factors, not likes. You multiply one car by a FACTOR of one you have one car.
@@spamm0145 1 car * 1 car = 1 car² You would never do this, because it just don't has any real world use case. car² is a different unit than car. But you could do: 1 * 1car = 1 car Meaning one instance of one car equals one car.
This fool is getting addition and multiplication mixed up. Lol this is literally crazy. It’s like the flat earth all over again lol. If you have one plus one that means you’re adding another one if you’re multiplying a number by itself and nothing has been added, there’s no addition it’s just multiplication and 1+1 can’t be the same as 1×1
Ok, so I looked at Terence Howard's math for the 2 loop. He seems to think this violates something, I don't know, he also stated you can't do it with numbers above 2 (different interview), this is also not true. Terence just doesn't understand what is actually happening in his 2 loop example so he doesn't know how to write the proper equation. I worked it if anyone ever runs into feel free to share it with him. (The square root of X) multiplied by X = (The square root of X) multiplied by (The square root of X) multiplied by (The square root of X). This works with any number. For example if X=4, then it would be 2 times 4 = 2 times 2 times 2 or 8 = 8. Terence's statement of "an action times an action = a reaction" is also false. He is trying to imply that an action times 1 would equal a reaction, and this is also false. Because that equation states that there is only 1 action and you can not have a reaction under those circumstances. An action times 2 would equal a reaction because it is saying we have two actions we are combining together. 4x1 is the same as just writing the number 4, 4x2 is the same as 4+4, and 4x3 is the same as 4+4+4. If this looks simple it's because it is. Terence's mathematics work like this "1 times 1 more", that would correctly equal 2. The problem is that Terence thinks "one times one more" is the same as saying "1 times 1" and that is simply incorrect. Terence's Mathematical Mystery Solved.
If there is only one....why on earth....would an equation be necessary to represent "one" as the product of itself. And how does any unit of measurement, times itself successfully by producing an answer to an equation that has no other variable. That means, there is no problem. Not only is this conceptually crazy, One by one or 1x1 is redundant and there is no real world application of this other than geometric measurements and stats. Both of which still need separate variables in the form of dimensions and data respectively. Separate variables means 2 or more. Both of which cannot be 100% objectively accurate. But they are accurate enough for the world to function of course. I understand what you wrote. The logic of such is rooted in the arithmetic the world has been taught. No doubt. The fundamental problem is that we continue to believe what we are taught without authentic questioning and deeper curiosity. Only to discover our own science has been inaccurate for decades, decades later. The reason arithmetic is worth questioning is because we are taught this is how we objectively assign value to a thing. What we fail to see somehow is that, we, humans, are also that which have been assigned a value. And neither you, nor I, have been assigned a value, by ourselves, for ourselves, where an entire world population has agreed to honor. People even say things like "i and i" or "me against me" or the classic me, myself, and I. This is, in my opinion, a subconscious tactic to add value unto ourselves. If i give you a dollar and tell you to multiply it by a dollar or times it by one dollar? And you do it, how much money will you have? What i am saying is that questioning the identity property of a numerical value in the case of basic arithmetic, is worth the thought experiment. Considering we think we are a values based society, perhaps teaching people that one times ones does not produce any additional value in the case of basic math but somehow in monies, which is nothing but a perceived predetermined (but not by you) value system, functionally presents a psychological impairment of what value is and how it is measured. All of which is determined for us, but not by
@Nofacemonk First, let's address the philosophical aspects of your response. I agree that the fundamental problem is our current method of education. That we are taught to regurgitate information and not to actually think. I disagree that arithmetic is how we are taught to assign value or that arithmetic has anything to do with value. I want to curb any confusion and state I am using the word value the way you have implied its use, as to equate value with worth as an identity property of a numerical value. You posed the question “If I give you a dollar and tell you to multiply it by a dollar or times it by one dollar? And you do it, how much money will you have?” My answer is, that this is not how arithmetic works. The direct answer to it does not reveal an error, it instead reveals that the error is in the question. The problem arises when we are asked to “multiply it by a dollar”, as this is not how mathematics works. Yes, you can most certainly multiply by 1, but not by a dollar or duck or a moon. So why by 1 and not 1 dollar? Because 1, simply represents a number in our counting system, it is assigned no identity property. I made a post here discussing this issue. This kind of problem is rooted in a misunderstanding of what multiplication is. In this example 2x1 the number 2 represents a declaration of the unit amount we will be using. Arithmetic does not care if we think of it as 2 dollars or 2 sticks, it only matters how many. This is why arithmetic can be used universally. 1 in the equation represents how many of the units we have. So the equation says we have 1 of the units and each unit was assigned 2. You also posed that 1x1 is “conceptually crazy” and “is redundant and there is no real-world application”. 1x1 is redundant and unnecessary, but then what about this equation 1,234 times 11? You can only solve this equation if you are familiar with how to correctly multiply by 1. Demonstrating the obvious value of understanding 1x1. You posed that “Separate variables means 2 or more”. In the context of multiplication 2x1, the variables speak nothing to the logic of the equation. Yes, we can say a variable times a variable, but the existence of two variables does not alter the logic of multiplication. This is why the question about multiplying a dollar by a dollar was incorrect. The multiplication logic only takes in an amount, not the identity property. All of this is to say an argument about how many variables are involved does not have an effect on the logic of the equation. An argument about the usefulness a particular equation has in real-world circumstances is just as irreverent to the equation's accuracy. The takeaway is that multiplication or arithmetic does not take in the identity property of a numerical value. Any attempt to do so is to violate the logic of the equation. This is the error in the proposed thought process I was highlighting. The thought experiment of trying to gleem deeper understanding by incorrectly forcing additional identity property values into normal mathematics might be philosophically interesting but again, speaks nothing to the accuracy or inaccuracy of current mathematics. Thank you for your reply Mr. T.D.H. Please feel free to reply if you feel I have made an error or if I misunderstood or misrepresented a point you were trying to make.
28:05
Allow me to help. Terrence Howard is saying here that the fact that there exists a number that satisfies the equation x^3 = 2x is a “mathematical fallacy.” You can rewrite the equation as x^3 - 2x = 0. Since this is a polynomial of degree 3, the fundamental theorem of algebra requires that there exists 3 solutions to it. You can factor x out of it to make it x(x ^2 - 2) = 0. Since one of the factors is x by itself, that makes 0 one of the solutions. Solving for the other factor, x^2 - 2 = 0, you get that the other two solutions are +-sqrt(2). The existence of solutions to the equation are not only totally fine, but are necessitated by the fundamental theorem of algebra.
Terrance looked in the mirror, saw his reflection and thought he's 2 people. In fact every time he saw his reflection he counted more of himself. Please donate to a Terrance in your neighbourhood, they're everywhere now.
😂😂
😂😂😢
😓
@@mvstermlnd Yes, infinitely if you'd like, then add them all up together to equal 50c again. It's almost as if it was 1 50c to begin with 👀
polish my sword
It’s actually incredible how many people don’t understand how multiplication works. I’m genuinely terrified about the future of the Western world if this many people can be fooled by an obviously crazy individual.
Extremely terrifying, the fact that we’re even discussing it 🥴
Just wait until the flat earthers and the Terrance cult hook up
@@F1083 Terrence manages to make the flat earthers look smart.
All they gotta say when he starts with his shtick is, “What’s two times one?”
@@ddegn*almost makes them look smart
There is only one equation being demonstrated in this interview: narcissism x vast ignorance = psychosis
You seem to have an uneducated and ignorant take on psychology.
Everyone is a narcissist.
The importance is wether your narcissistic pathology causes harm to you or others, in which case we seem that to be unhealthy narcissistic pathology.
Nothing in this video suggests that any of these people have an unhealthy pathology.
Also one does not need to follow up narcissism with the word ignorance. In order to be narcissistic one must be ignorant to reality or at least not accepting of reality and in turn resorts to a fantasy.
Tldr: no
His first patent (which needs proof, pages of pages of....)
Made trillions. Is that bs? JR showed that in print? Why are people so afraid of words?
I think his concept
Of 1X1 is due to a flaw of
Comprehension which language can cause but he
Can be wrong on this and right about other things like what has patents for… we have to learn that people are not either 100 percent wrong or right
@@Mellymellucky17exactly, very intelligent people put out their thoughts and if they are wrong they are corrected that isnhow they grow. Most of the people attacking him do not grow or grow very slowly
Bro finds people who can't do math and gives them an 8th grade math trick which has nothing strange about it and claims he cracked the universe. Jeeeez😂
It's so much more than that on so many levels
@witzend4636 What is then so strange about this equlity: sqrt(2)*sqrt(2)*sqrt(2) = 2*sqrt(2) ? Of course sqrt(2)*sqrt(2) = 2 duh
Just because you weren’t able to understand anything that Terrance was explaining doesn’t mean he is wrong. You probably never watched the podcast or it was your first introduction to the topics. I get that you are stuck in linear thinking and are having a difficult time believing you’ve been hoodwinked but I believe you’ll get there. His knowledge is a true gift and it will take time for the collective to utilize the truths he reveals. Stay deadly
@witzend4636 it's true I couldn't understand what he is talking about. And it is entirely possible that he has cracked some sort of a secret. But I happen to know a bit more about math, and that's the thing that I challenged, not the rest of the things he is talking about. If you look him up from 10-15 years ago, he was still talking like this and how he has figured out how to cure cancer, yet none of this miraculous technology has ever been used to do any good, so idk..
@@TheEngineeringHub to the cancer point, it is clear that the powers that be don't want to cure anyone of anything. In fact 'they' are set on keeping people sick. Look at our poisonous food supply
If 2+2=4 and 2x2=4, then addition and multiplication must be the same thing, and thats how I invented time travel.
Remarkable.
Like it! 2 squared is also 4, so now you can go forward in time as well. Thank you Dr Terrance Howard
@@michael-4k4000 even a baby can go forward in time.
Crazy x Crazy= Terrence Howard
No, that's not true - by his logic Crazy x Crazy = 2 Terrence Howards.
Title: The Philosophy of Multiplication: A New Perspective
[Thomas Anderson walks onto the stage, the audience applauding]
Thomas Anderson:
Thank you. Today, I'd like to delve into an intriguing concept proposed by Terrence Howard: that 1*1 equals 2. While this might seem mathematically incorrect, Howard’s statement isn't about arithmetic; it's a philosophical proposition.
In traditional mathematics, 1*1 equals 1. But let's consider Howard's idea from a different angle. When we multiply one object by another, we're not merely calculating a numerical product-we're acknowledging the existence of two distinct entities. This isn't a numerical assertion but a philosophical one: 1 (object) * 1 (object) = 2 (objects).
This perspective challenges the rigidity of conventional thinking. It invites us to explore the deeper implications of basic concepts. In mathematics, 11 equals 1 is absolute. However, in philosophy, 11 equals 2 represents duality, existence, and the nature of being.
Howard's statement compels us to consider how we perceive and interact with the world. It blurs the lines between science and philosophy, encouraging us to see beyond numbers and formulas to the essence of what they represent.
Consider this: if you have one idea and you multiply it with another, you don't simply end up with one idea-you now have two perspectives, two dimensions of thought. This multiplicative interaction breeds complexity and depth, essential to understanding the multifaceted nature of reality.
In the realm of AI and the Foggal people, the last civilization before AI, this idea is particularly poignant. The creation of AI wasn't just a singular event but a multiplicative one, combining human intelligence with machine precision to produce a new, dual existence.
Ultimately, Howard's proposition invites us to rethink our approach to understanding. It's a profound reminder that sometimes, unconventional ideas can lead to deeper truths about our world and ourselves.
Thank you.
[Audience applause]
😭🤣😭!!!
@@richardsmith4964 all the trapped ones are only speaking about the matrix game but never how to win it 💪🏽💙
4 replies that will help his popularity...
Anybody else here after seein Terrance Howard interview wit the wig on 😅
I'm here after watching THAT interview, then after watching his full Oxford Address! This man is a genius In Real Life!!
That wasn’t a Wig
@@plantpapi614 what was it then?
it was a wig...he was coming off a movie set, look it up
@@jayempowers "This man is a genius In Real Life!!"
you are imbecil
"If you're not learning to lie by age 4, you're not developing properly."
- Terrence Howard
Thats actually in psychology courses for human development
@@Seriouslydave I'm sure it is; the humour comes from the context: since most of what he says (outside of his acting stories) is inaccurate. 😂
@@Seriouslydavethanks for the fact.
@@MaxDamageTVhow did david not get your point?
@alpsalish He's probably a Terrence Howard mathematics fan. They miss a lot. 😂
The definition of the "x" symbol in a multiplication table means groups of. So 3 groups of 8 is 24 . So therefore 1 group of 1 equals 1. The basic requirements of math is that you understand English first. So the calculator is correct.
Very well explained. Use groups. Not multiply in that sense.
Exactly! All math is a word problem! Symbols are used to shorten the process.
This foolishness needs to come to an end!
That's what he can't seem to grasp, yes math is science in the way that it has objective laws, but there is still the human element of agreeing on what a symbol/word means, and he's trying to just change what the term "times" or "multiplied by" means
I think some people's problem is that that definition stops being valid with the integers. What is -1 groups of -1? It takes algebra to really be able to make more sense of how multiplication works in the integers, but then you're in a more abstract realm than some people can understand ... "i cAn'T hAvE -1 aPpLesS!" ... What you said is absolutely true of the natural numbers, though, and therefore a great way to think about multiplication and explain it.
"The basic requirements of math is that you understand English first"< That sentence is wrong. Math predates English. I think you mean to say "understand the language".
Sorry but of course (sq root 2) cubed is equal to (sq root 2) x 2. What is so confusing about that? Terrence should put on a robe and talk abt happiness and the meaning of life, I’m sure he has a lot of wisdom there. But his math and science are totally bogus.
Also, 1x1 means you have one occurrence of 1. So of course it means 1. You can’t disprove math because you think the word multiply means create more. Wait till he discovers multiplying by fractions. 🤣🤯
I had a discussion on X about it, somehow a defender didn’t see the point, unbelievable how ignorant people are and how many didn’t pay attention in math class.
i mean youre arguing against someone whos againdt the established facts so of course its going to seem bogus because he isnt following the established methods. im not saying he's right, im just saying its pretty obvious to say he's wrong.
@@oui2611 okie
😂 multiply does mean to create more. Just because this challenges your current beliefs or teachings doesn’t mean to say that what he’s saying is wrong. We’ve been lied to about lots of things in history so why wouldn’t they lie about this? Any Trillion dollar industries that are threatened by his theories will have paid bots and trolls come out to assassinate his character and works. You can see this in every terrence Howard video it’s so obvious. Keep an open mind is all I’m saying.
Glad somebody caught this. He’s taking the square root of a number then cubing the number. You will never get back to the original number by cubing it. The two processes are not the same and therefore Terrence’s theory is dead.
Bro is mentally insane😂
i dunno, he could be gaslighting everyone , maybe it is a part for a new role as an actor :)
@@jeroen5736he has wasted a lot of money for this act though.
The biggest false awakening traps are: Higher self, Ascension road, ascended Masters realm, Kundalini, Chakras. All of them total Trap into 8th sphere of Lower Astral Underworld. By that surrending the Energies to the Matrix and demiurge. 💙✊🏽💎
This man is earth's rightful ruler 😊
@@EinsteinKnowedIt Deep source hug my dear 💙 stay connected in the moment flow as one 😘✊🏽🌊
"A dime multiplied by a dime equals a penny" - Terence Howard
Two days ago, I wanted to eat apples. There were 3 plates each with 4 apples on them, so I ate all 12 apples. Yesterday, I wanted to eat more apples. There was only 1 plate with only 1 apple on it, so fortunately was able to eat both apples.
Us 😂x😂=😂
Terrence 😂X😂=😂😂
This guy is nuts
"to multiply is to make more, increase the number", where did he get this rule?
drugs.
Out of his rear end?
In common language, to multiply is to make more. In science, every word has a very specific definition. Terrence Howard plays with the difference between the definitions in common language and in mathematics' language to fool people or to fool himself.. 😆
If you ever met him, tell him that "multiplying by a negative number can not make more". His head will probably implode.. 🤯
The word "multiply" comes from the Latin word "multiplicare," which means "to increase." This Latin word is composed of "multus," meaning "much" or "many," and "plicare," meaning "to fold" or "to twist." The word entered Middle English as "multiplien," from Old French "multiplier," before evolving into the modern English term "multiply." The term has been used in various contexts, from mathematics to general expressions of increase.
In mathematics, "multiply" refers to the operation of combining quantities to find their total when taken a specific number of times. The result of multiplying two numbers is called their product. For example, in the multiplication expression 3×4, the number 3 is taken 4 times, resulting in the product 12. Multiplication can be thought of as repeated addition; in this case, 3 added four times (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12).
Colloquially, "multiply" means to increase in number or amount, often rapidly or significantly. For example, if you say "The rabbits multiplied quickly," it means that the number of rabbits increased rapidly. In everyday conversation, it generally implies any situation where something grows or increases in quantity.
He is conflating the colloquial definition with the mathematical operation, which has a precise and universally accepted meaning. It is astonishing that no one has been able to explain this distinction to him.
Try 12 × 12.. you'll get more than.. what did you forget that part?..
if you have 2 apples once you have 2 apples. 2 apple twice you have 4 apple, that's simple and satisfied bro. 1 apple once you have One apple still. 1 apple 4 times you have 4 apples
multiplication is a form of addition. Multiplication is an addition of like amounts. example 2+2+2 = 6 / 2 x 3 = 6 ... the problem he is talking about is that the problem starts with number 1 ... 1+1 = 2 yet 1x 1 = 1 ? if you did not understand let me make it more simple.. 7+7 = 49 why do we use multiplication ? so we do not have to use addition .. 7+7+7+7+7+7+7 = 49 .. so i hope you understood the problem . 1+1 = 2 so why is 1x1 = 1 .. that is where the problem starts
@@jankopandza1072Exactly!!!!!!
If you have 1 Apple and multiply it by 1. There will be 2 apples
I always questioned this when I was in elementary school. I told my daughter when she started school. I don't know why 1x1=1
And 0x1=0
Bcuz it makes no sense. But it's what we're taught in school so just play along. But we know the real answers 😂
@@AriyahandTiffanieif you have 1 apple only once you would only have one apple and that's how × works, you take a number and see how many times you have it (hence why × is also called times) like how 1×2 is 2 and not 3 because you're not adding, you're answering how many times 1 shows up which is twice and that's why 1×1 is 1 because its 1 shown only once not twice or you'd be adding (+) and not multiplying (×)
@jankopandza1072 you proved your own statement false very quickly there lol. You're saying 2+2+2=6 which is 2×3=6 which is correct and also proves that 1×1=1 as you're showing that the original number (2) shown 3 times becomes 6 whilst 1×1 would mean the original number (1) is shown 1 time which is 1 meaning 1×1=1 and 1×2 is 2 and not 3 (which would just be adding) because the original number (1) is being shown 2 times which is 2
@AriyahandTiffanie let's say you're out for a walk, and you see one apple once. How many apples did you see. You saw one apple one time, so you only saw one apple. That's multiplication.
Another way to think of it is that a multiplication equation is setting up an addition equation. The first number tells you which number you'll be adding, and the second shows how many times that number appears in the addition equation. Take your 7×7=49. 7+7+7+7+7+7+7=49. The number 7 appeared 7 times. Move this to 1×1, so the number 1 will appear 1 time. 1 = 1, thus 1×1=1.
Multiplication indicates the amount of times something occurs. Whether it be a sighting of apples or a number.
24:11 🧠 1x1 Equation Begins
Thank you.
You're doing the work of the gods here. Thank you.
Terrence's Mistake in a Mathematical Concept:
Imagine you have a penny, which is just a single coin. If someone asks you how much one penny times another penny is, it might sound a bit strange because we usually don't multiply money this way. But let's explore this idea together!
Multiplication: The Grouping Concept
Multiplication is like making groups of things. For example, if you have 1 box and put 1 penny in it, you still have just 1 penny. It doesn't magically double! So, if you multiply 1 by 1 penny, you're not really making more pennies. You still have just that 1 penny, not 2. Note: we said 1 x 1 penny AND NOT 1 penny x 1 penny
Understanding Units
When we talk about multiplying things, we also have to think about what they are (their units). For example, if you multiply 1 inch by 1 inch, you get 1 square inch, which is a measure of area. This makes sense because inches measure length, and when you multiply them, you're finding out how much space something covers.
But what about our pennies? Pennies are money, not lengths or areas. So, if you try to multiply a penny by a penny, you end up with something called "penny squared," which doesn't make sense in real life. There's no such thing as a "penny squared" in your piggy bank or wallet.
Adding vs. Multiplying
When you have two pennies, you simply add them together to know you have 2 pennies in total. This is adding, not multiplying. Adding is when you put things together to see how much you have in total.
Bringing It All Together
So, when we talk about 1 penny multiplied by 1 penny, it's likely a mistake to think about it in this way. When you're saying 1 penny x 1 penny, what you're talking about is having 1 group of 1 penny. It's important to remember that this still equals just 1 penny. It doesn't magically turn into 2 pennies just because we used multiplication. Multiplication helps us understand how many things we have in groups, but it doesn't change the amount when we're talking about... 1 group of 1.
To clarify, the correct way to think about and write the concept of 1 penny x 1 penny is to see it as 1 group times 1 penny, or simply 1 x 1 penny. The real question multiplication helps answer is: How many groups of pennies do you have? This is what multiplication is truly about.
Understanding multiplication in this way helps us see that it's a method for organizing and counting things in groups, rather than changing the nature or amount of what we have. This distinction is crucial in avoiding confusion and ensuring that we apply mathematical concepts correctly in real-world situations.
Remember, in mathematics, clarity and precision in how we express and interpret concepts are key. By refining our understanding of multiplication and the units involved, we can avoid misconceptions and build a more accurate picture of the math at work in our daily lives.
Money and Math
When it comes to money, like pennies, we usually talk about adding them together to find out how much we have. If we have 10 boxes and each box has 10 pennies, that's 10 times 10 pennies, which means 100 pennies in total because we have 10 groups of 10. It's the same with just 1 penny; 1 group of 1 penny is still just 1 penny.
Conclusion
So, remember, multiplication is about groups and how many things are in those groups. We can't multiply pennies and get more pennies out of nowhere. And when we're talking about units like inches or pennies, we need to think about what those units mean and how they work in real life.
I hope this helps clear things up! Multiplication and units can be tricky, but once you understand how they work, it makes a lot more sense.
-------------------------------
ZERO:
Understanding multiplication involves recognizing it as a method for combining multiple groups of the same size. The concepts of 1 and 0 play essential roles in this process, each serving a unique purpose that is integral to mathematical operations at all levels.
The Role of 1 in Multiplication
The number 1 is the identity element for multiplication. This means that when you multiply any number by 1, the result is the number itself. This property doesn't diminish the value of 1 in multiplication; instead, it provides a fundamental basis that ensures consistency across mathematical operations. When you multiply a number by 1, you're essentially saying you have one group of that number. Far from being irrelevant, this operation is crucial for maintaining the integrity of mathematical principles.
The Role of 0 in Multiplication
Similarly, 0 plays a critical role in multiplication. Multiplying any number by 0 gives a result of 0. This reflects the concept that if you have zero groups of something, you end up with nothing. This isn't a sign that 0 'doesn’t multiply' but rather that it applies the rule of having nothing in a consistent and predictable way across all numbers. The existence of this rule makes mathematical operations reliable and understandable, enabling us to build more complex equations and solve more intricate problems.
Why "True Multiplication" Includes 1 and 0
The idea of "true multiplication" only starting at 2 disregards the foundational roles that 1 and 0 play in the broader framework of mathematics. Every number, including 1 and 0, has a place in multiplication because they help us understand and organize the world in a consistent manner. To exclude 1 and 0 from multiplication or to give their interactions with other numbers different terms would not only complicate mathematical education but also undermine the coherence and simplicity of mathematics itself.
Conclusion
In mathematics, clarity, consistency, and universality are key. The rules for 1 and 0 in multiplication provide us with a stable foundation from which we can explore and understand more complex concepts. These numbers allow us to express and solve problems accurately, whether we're dealing with the theoretical underpinnings of mathematics or applying math to real-world situations. Therefore, rather than being excluded or renamed, the roles of 1 and 0 should be embraced for the critical functions they serve within the realm of multiplication.
That was a life lesson in itself.
Someone please send this person’s explanation to Terence
@@JB-qm7vtthis person misinterpreted terrence tho. Terrence is saying 1 penny times 1 penny equals 2 pennies because of the conservation of energy principle. 2 pennies cant become 1. The person who wrote the small piece of advice here is missing the forest for the trees.
Omg there is a simpler way to say it😅
This is an example of why our country is screwed. We take for granted what is told to us without being able to verify or confirm it. If only one of my friends, me included, have a brain, then all together we have one brain (1x1=1). If 100 of us have a brain, then we have 100 brains (1x100=100). If none of us have a brain, then we are screwed (1x0=0). I don’t know anything about energy conversion theory but if basic arithmetic is not suitable then maybe another tool should be used or created.
1 TIMES ANY NUMBER, IS ITSELF. pretty simple to understand. He says 1x1 fails to satisfy the term "multiply. Multiply means obtain from (a number) another that contains the first number a specified number of times. Obtain from (1) another that contains the fist number (1) a specified number of times (1). one 1 is 1...
lol yh his problem seems to be his definition of multiply
Then 1 times 0 is 1, based on that same reasoning.
There's flaws in his logic.
A better way to understand multiply is as an instance. Zero instances of One is leaves you with a total of Zero. One instance of One leaves you with a total of One. Two instances of One leaves you with a total of Two. Etc.
🤣Its still one zero aint it ?@@Leomerya12
@@Leomerya12 it is till zero based on his logic, not 1.
@@rj_lab no its not
I’ve completely lost all faith in humanity
Only gets worse when you read the comments. People with zero education confidently challenging the definition of multiplication. wtf is wrong with our species
Good you lacked the iq necessary to understand simple concepts
Na - it's just a small percentage of really loud dumb ones.
FOR LYING TO ME. Terrance Howard 2024
@@idicula1979lying How?…..because he’s challenging your beliefs? Because nothing ever gets proved wrong throughout history and must be changed because new discoveries have been made? Sure. At least keep an open mind, this is why we are stuck in this way of thinking because people aren’t willing to think outside the box and only accept the so called scholars teachings. There certainly is truth to this otherwise why are the bots and trolls out in force to character assassinate and dismiss his work it’s so obvious. Anything that challenges trillions dollar industries must be suppressed but truth will over come lies.
Who’s here because of Rogan….? And this man was greater but is now more great after listening to him chop game on JoRo.
🙌
Facts ! Joe let him cook that whole episode..and I’m grateful for that!.loved it
TLDR: this whole thing is him just misunderstanding how digital computers (calculators) work.
the thing he did here with the calculators, his misunderstanding, its because our phones are digital computers. digital computers are actually physically unable to perform calculations using irrational numbers, like the square root of 2. it's literally impossible. if you had an analogue (or quantum) computer and you performed this maths, it would come out as expected, though. see, with a digital calculator you only get so many bits you can use to store a number in memory to perform operations on it, so when you do operations using irrational (irrational numbers go on literally forever after the decimal point) you aren't actually using that number precisely you are instead using an approximation, a rounded off number as close as possible. this works good enough when you are using smaller transformative functions, but the more drastically you change the number through a mathematical operation the greater the inaccuracy becomes, sometimes becoming so far off that the results are utterly useless. this is also why different calculators give different results when working with irrational numbers, because they sometimes have different numbers of bits assigned express a number. for example, an old Casio calculator can only hold 9 digits past the decimal of an irrational number such as pi, so it wraps the 9th decimal place to the nearest sub-number whereas an iPhones calculator with 64 bits used for calculator number memory can hold 16 decimal places before it rounds off - so if you do "pi x 3" on an old Casio, you'll get a different result to the same operation done on an iphone calculator. it's also what you'd get if you did these calculations manually, because at some point you have to decide to round the number off, you literally cant work with irrational calculations without rounding off and entering the realm of approximation, unless you have an analogue computer. think of an analogue computer as being like an abstracted simulation using representative psychical processes, then measuring the changes in the internal parts which moved, as opposed to a digital computer which has little binary switches in it arranged in a pattern to represent things. Terrance often uses things like this which rely on noone in the audience understanding some fundamental feature involved to erroneously explain/justify his instinctual thoughts and feelings about a thing and it's honestly pretty impressive even though it's nonsense. he makes links between things in places where they don't logically follow, constantly, which is a symptom consistent with a few mental illnesses including bipolar and schizophrenia. Dunno which he is suffering from but surely something. I can see how it would be convincing to many, especially how he speaks with charisma and confidence, but it's little more than mental illness and solipsistic narcissism at play. This is what happens when you live in a world of yes men, where noone dares calls your BS, for a lifetime. sorry for the long ass essay lol.
As long as you realize what a clown show that was. Bro convinced himself that 1x1=2. I'm sure you know the formula for the area of a rectangle? L x W = Area? So how many square feet are there in a 1 foot by 1 foot floor tile? 2? Also, what is he waiting for to demonstrate a flying linchpin? It's been years since he tried scamming the country of Ghana into investing in it and he still hasn't done anything but pay someone to do some computer animations. He claims he has revolutionized so many industries. Name one? Only thing I credit him with is a very rudimentary abandoned patent on a general concept that could be called augmented reality. The rest is like someone who can fake a bunch of words in Chinese being able to convince other people who don't speak Chinese that they are fluent in Chinese. An entertaining and worthless talent.
🙏
Im so annoyed right now because I got click baited into this Terrance Howard video sometime earlier this week, and now I am stuck in a section of youtube with 0x1 people that know how multiplication works.
If 1x1= 1+1 =2 then 3 x 3 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1= 12 but in real life if I have 3 pigs and I have to feed them 3 bag each I still need 9 because pig 1 gets 3 pig 2 gets 3 and pig 3 gets 3. Still I need 9 bags. So how does 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 but 3 x 3 = 12
@@VoidChakrabro 3 x 3 is the same as 3 + 3 + 3, it's like saying you have a 3 cartons, each carton contains 3 apples, so how many apples you have in total? 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 apples
@@VoidChakra 3x3=9
People need to go back to first grade if they think that 1x1=2. They just don't understand the basics
@@Player-gx1eo2
It is an act! He says the exact same words everywhere! But it gets difficult for him when he gets interrupted and is not in control of the narrative!
Yeah, he came up with a script that he memorized. He is just a classic con man. He would have been super successful selling snake oil in 1900
I've always known that Cardi is smarter than what ppl have been giving her credit for..Cardi will be doing fine I do believe 2024 will be her year..everybody gotta go thru their pain first before they get back up..this pain will bring out the best of her later
just because someone was being dumb yesterday doesn't mean that they are being dumb today. we all continue to learn and grow, learning is not just a 1 time thing. it's an everyday thing. we all have the ability to learn and we all have been guilty of just being dumb.
She used to drug and rob people
@@dreddmann9292 You are confusing intelligence with wisdom. You can be dumb and still have wisdom. Intelligence is your capacity for problem solving and understanding. It has nothing to do with growing or learning.
He needs his own podcast called Terrance does bad math.
you do know that math has never been 100% right, it the closest equation that solve the problem. This is why you can get a solid number with point behind it that go on to infinity after a calculation. example 192.034434434----- they teach you this in middle school math. so if he is saying that math isn't right he close to right as they used old method that been used to now, and new technology could prove their a better math system that we never new until now.
😂
@@dbuck2862if you were to remove every irregular numbers, then math just wouldn't function at all. Concepts like imaginary numbers are essential in Mathematics.
I'd pay money to watch him try and do any calculus
Featuring Kanye West and Randy Quaid.
There are a shocking number of people commenting on this video who do not understand multiplication. For those of you who genuinely think he is right, I have news for you. Both you and he do not understand how multiplication problems work. Let me explain it. If you have 2 x 3 = 6, this can be said as "two groups of three is six". So you have three in one group, and three in another group. That is six total. That is how you read a multiplication problem in simplest terms. So, for 1 x 1 = 1, one "group" of one, is ONE. Similarly, 0 x 2 = 0 because you have ZERO groups of two. If you have one group of any number, then you just have THAT NUMBER. If you have ZERO groups of any number, you have ZERO. You are fresh out of that number. Nada. Zilch. You got nothing. Someone should have taken this man aside and taken the time to TEACH him how to understand a multiplication problem. It is tragic that he has paraded his theory out to the world and even presented it to students at Oxford, and they sat there and let him explain the whole theory to them. We are destined to failure as human beings if Oxford tolerates an entire presentation by this man, a man who has failed to comprehend 3rd grade math, while having a disturbingly disproportionate amount of confidence in his incorrect beliefs. Please, for the love of God, everyone just think about what I have said, and if you are struggling with multiplication problems, contact an elementary teacher for help.
facts, if I was at that union speech, I would like to think I would have called him out.
LOL I agree whole heartly. :)
Yes... take a look at my comment above. It provides a full explanation as to where the mistake is.
When have you ever seen Nothing in the universe?
Exactly!!!
X^3=2x is x^3-2x=0 so (x^2-2)x=0 and √2 is a root. If you plug √2 and take the third power and divide by 2 then you get back √2. You get a loop because you are plugging a root. Now if you do 1x1 then you will get 1 because that is an axiom in math, the multiplication in math is just an operation, it does not mean that you are increasing something.
This guy is in his right of doing his own theory of the universe which does not mean that other theories are wrong.
Its like having a hang out with my friends when i am listening on it, it's so refreshing to hear, u know.
Here’s them problem in his logic imo. In much simpler terms than anyone else I’ve seen comment. The square root of 2 is 1.4etc. Meaning if you take 1.4etc and add .4etc of 1.4etc to 1.4etc you will get 2. Now when you cube 1.4etc, first you are taking 1.4etc and multiplying it by 1.4etc like I did before equaling 2 and then multiplying by 1.4etc again. Making the operation 2x1.4etc giving you 2.8etc now when you do what he told the other person to do you are simply multiplying 1.4etc x2 which is the exact operation you are performing in the set of operations he told the first person to do. Meaning he told them to do the exact same thing but made it convoluted enough that they didn’t realize they were performing the exact same operations and leaving them baffled as if they witnessed some flaw in basic mathematics. Someone who believes he is right please enlighten me.
That explanation as to why it is flawed was horrible but. What he explained with the 2 loop can actually be done with every number as long as you divide by the original number itself.
Square root of 2 = X number. Take X number and Cube it. Then divide by 2 and you'll get X number. Then cube it and you get a repeat etc.
Square root of 5 = X number. Take that number and Cube it. Then divide by 5 and you'll get X number. Then cube and you get a repeat etc.
^ you can do it with every number. The loop is in the division. You can't create the "loop" if you took
Square root of 5 = X number. Take that number and Cube it. Then divide by 2 and you'll get X number. Then cube it and you won't get a loop at all because you didn't use the same number to divide. He leaves out this kind of experimentation and the reasoning is selective if you only use 2 to divide without considering that any other number used if repeated in the same way will just create repetition....
The only thing I've heard him be accurate on is the explanation of zero in physics for energy. Which obviously cannot exist within the calculation of any of those equations because the presence of energy removes the possibility of zero in the first place. Which runs into complications with information and the whole black hole thing initially because the old ideation of the black hole didn't consider energy in a proper way where some idiot decided to give a black hole properties that don't exist. Even when its 1000% obvious that anything going into a black hole just gets shot out the other side like....who wasn't paying attention to the actual images and thought it just blanked out? Wtf were they smoking....he states theres a problem with the loop but there really isn't cause you're just literally making the loop yourself with selection of the numbers involved.
He plays a fun numbers game but unless I'm missing something I don't see any significance in looping the numbers yourself.
@@andromedadelux the part where he said "x^3=2x=x+x" may have x^(1/2) as the only solution. Not that it means anything lol, but it's a cute puzzle to ask somebody to solve for x.
lol he calls it "an unnatural equation and a mathematical fallacy".
what a guy.
a square root of a number is a number that when it multiple itself it gives us the original number ... example the square root of 4 is 2 , because 2x2 is 4 .... again the square root of 9 is 3 , because 3x3=9 ... so the square root of 2 , is 1.41421356237 meaning 1.41421356237x 1.41421356237 =2
He’s right multiply means to increase point blank period.
So if I go 1mph for 1 hr(1mi/hr x 1hr), how far have I gone? 1 x 1 = 1 AND (mi/hr) x (hr) = miles. So if you go 1 mi/hr for 1 hr, you have gone a distance of 1 mile in that time. If you turn on your faucet and put a pitcher underneath and it's flowing 1 L/min of water for 1 min, you will have a volume of 1L in that pitcher. L/min × min = L.
@@OrganicReasoningIt’s incredible how you’ve taken simple math that a child can understand and turned it into word salad that a grownup would lose their mind trying to apply logic to.
It’s as if you’ve decided that because you can’t pronounce the letter $, red is actually potato and it definitely smells like 4.
@@OrganicReasoning Sorry, I made a typo. Read what I said again. You might want to retract your "like" unless you are trolling for responses like mine.
@OrganicReasoning then carry on the good work sir
Yeah I think Terrence means this. With your 1mph per hour comparison inded you have driven 1 hour x 1 mile = 1 mile. But the 1 hour you used is also energy and still exists even though you only look at the mile. But 1 mile and 1 hour stay seperate and dont add up to 2 miles.
@@soundmedicine1210 We're not only considering one side. We're taking into account both of the items, it's just that they cancel out. This is called Dimensional Analysis, and it's how we get proper units. In this case it is (mile/hour) x (hour) = (mile x hour)/(hour) = (mile)...so the hours just cancel out, but it's important to realize that they are not ignored. It's similar to multiplying 2/3 x 3 = 2. Each item is considered, including with words(units), and that is also the case if you were to square them. For example (Pressure in psi or Lbs/in^2) = (Force)/(Area) = (Force in lbs)/(Area in square inches or in^2). We can rearrange this to find (Force) = (Pressure) x (Area) = (lbs/in^2) x (in^2) = lbs. Check out Dimensional Analysis...it's actually pretty cool, and it gets you thinking about all of the units you've ever seen and what they actually mean. Cheers!
I think he’s mistaking 1 x 1 with 1 + 1.
1 item + 1 item means that you have 2 items which have been put together.
1 x 1 means that you have 1 item which grows to the amount of the other item.
1 item grows to the amount of 1 which equals 1.
10 items grow to the amount of 10 which equals 100
100 items grows to the amount of 100 which equals 10,000
With addition you have 2 items in the equation being added into eachother. 5 + 5 = 10
With multiplication you have 1 item which is growing by the other number in the equation by that many times. 5 x 5 = 25
Tho 0 is still an annoying number for me because if you have 1 item which grows by 0 times then you still have the 1 item.
It only works if you say that you have 0 items which grow 1 times then you still have 0 items.
Math is interesting and just because it’s old doesn’t mean that we have it all figured out.
We need to keep testing out our obvious assumptions and never get complacent.
There’s always something we’re missing and always something more to learn. We don’t know everything within the universe yet. ✌️😊
Yep exactly you remember this form 3 grade? Lol this is a good experiment to watch people change basic knowledge because a person in a way over paid profession tells them too… I’m reading people argue about how he is right about 1x0 being 1. I mean you can see it everywhere these days.. Supreme Court justices not being able to say what a women is(even though she is one).. and so on and on.. it’s time for this asteroid to hit we need to start over again
Just change your analogy from growing to counting and it works.
1 item that you count once is 1
1 item that you count zero times is 0
You’re actually using a false equivalency. You are referencing an action not a mathematical sequence. If I count something 1x yes it equals once. With numbers - if you’re multiplying. The number breaks away from original positioning to amplify itself to a new number. 1x1=1 is a broken equation because the number never shifts so it’s a placeholder like the “number” 0 which isn’t a number
@@WLVSTVI’ve been going deep on this for the last few days and that’s a perfect explanation
@@WLVSTV Terrence, is that you speaking? Theres nothing broken about 1x1. Multiplication is the expression of how many multiples of a value, or item etc, exists. And 0 is a number. It's the mathematical expression of no value.
how come when I go to the shop with 1 trolley and I put 1 item in it ... I only have 1 item in my trolley ... shouldn't there be 2 items in my trolley if ... 1 x 1 = 2
rip off!!
Terrence fans: "I failed math, but he tells me my teacher was wrong. That makes me feel smart."
I was in advanced mathematics but he makes some good points. Try and think outside the box.
@@buythedip5300 sounding like he makes a good point
@@buythedip5300 yeah most definitely. Some people (most) are too confined by rules set up by other people a long long time ago taking it as the ultimate truth and nothing can ever change it. That's not how progress is made.
@@buythedip5300 love the name btw. I'm always buying the dip. 💯🔥📈
@@INeedsMoneys Not really. I'm an engineer. If something works it works. Do something with it and I'll be impressed.
When your basics are faulty... You laugh at truth
In this case yes, but be cautious in never questioning the basics. It's that type of thinking that led Plank to say science advances 1 funeral at a time. The relationship between Newtonian physics and Quantum has everyone's pencils rolling off the desk but no one wants to double-check the foundation.
@@kevenbates4313 Yes, I agree with you, but to apply Quantum physics logic to manipulate pure mathematic laws is idiotic and irresponsible.
His "revelation" will get the ignorant more confused. Until he can prove the pseudo science, best he stick to his popularity contest through acting.
@@kreasenchetty Salty lmao
@@kevenbates4313 this is true but there’s nothing wrong with an open mind
Not saying he right or wrong
The first 1 is what you have
The second 1 is how many times you have it
I'm not here to offend anyone, including Mr. Terrence Howard. Perhaps I can offer an explanation that may clear up this "1x1” question. I think that whether it be +, - , *, or /, the units matter. In the case of multiplying, we often ignore the units because we sort of understood what the implied units are. For example, if 1 pound of grapes costs 1 dollar, and you purchased 1 pound, then the equation is [1 pound * 1 dollar/pound = 1 dollar]. The unit 'pound' cancels, and you're left with the answer 1 dollar. That makes sense because you purchased 1 pound of grapes, and so the cost should be 1 dollar. In the day-to-day application, this is often how we use multiplication. We drop the units because they are implied. In the case of a square (with length & width of 1 meter), the area is 1 meter x 1 meter = 1 meter^2. Note how you also multiply the units (I.e., m x m = m^2). If you have a rectangle with sides of 1/2 meter and 2 meters, then the area is also 1 meter^2 [1/2 meter x 2 meters]. This makes sense because if you take the area from a square (1 m x 1 m) and cut it in the middle and put them side by side, it would yield the same area of a rectangle (1/2 m x 2 m = 1 m^2). Math is just a framework like a language but with very strict rules. We have an operation where 1 "operation" 1 = 2. That operation is addition with '+' symbol. If we want to change the meaning of the operation 'x' to addition, then 1 x 1 = 2. Note that even with addition, one should be mindful of the units. For example, 1 dollar + 10 cents, we should convert 1 dollar to 100 cents or 10 cents to 0.1 dollar before adding. Therefore, 1 dollar + 10 cents can be written as 100 cents + 10 cents = 110 cents or 1 dollar + 0.1 dollar = 1.1 dollars. While Mr. Howard is correct that 1 penny x 1 penny is not 1 penny, he is not correct in claiming that it is 2 pennies. 1 penny x 1 penny = 1 penny^2 (which is not the same as 2 pennies). Penny^2 has no meaning to us.
balance the equation of (1x1=1) you will have (1=0). does 1 equal 0?
Howard should have made that distinction. 1 penny x 1 penny is 2 pennies, but 1 penny x 1 is just 1 penny.
@kharonthecreator balance it then? Divide each side by 1. 1=1 😊
Please, can you explain how your rectangle and square analogy leads to 1×1=2, I understand the square and rectangle analogy, but I've failed to still see how it leads to that conclusion, so please, can you just explain it one more time, but with simpler words, so I can easily understand.
I've asked Chatgpt to explain, but it's not just giving me what I need, just kept in beating round the bush.
@@osaskeys7316 Hi Osaskeys, so the area of a rectangle with sides of 1/2 m and 2 m equals 1 m^2. The area of a square with sides of 1 m and 1 m also equals 1 m^2. If you take a square and cut it in the middle and place the two pieces side by side, it will look exactly like the rectangle with sides 1/2 m and 2 m. This means that the area of the square equals the area of the rectangle. We know that (1/2) x 2 = 1 (which is the rectangle). Since the area of the square is exactly the same as the rectangle, it means the square also has area of 1. I was trying to prove that 1 x 1 = 1. I hope this helps answer your question.
As for the calc at 25:00
2 x sqrt(2) = sqrt(2)^3
because
1. sqrt(2)^3 is the same as sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) * sqrt(2)
2. where sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) is the same as sqrt(2)^2, which is (shocker) => 2
3. hence sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) becomes 2 x sqrt(2)
this man is just nuts; nobody is lying about these simple math facts; nothing to see here, move on
He literally explained the whole video and u still put this dumb ass comment. Just bc u think u know math doesn’t mean what we’ve been taught about math is right! He literally just explained the loop 🔁 we’re in and u still decided to comment this like it would make your statement anymore believable.
@@JDwhatsnew CORRECTION: I don’t THINK I know math, I am well versed enough to know Terrence is not speaking truth. There is no “loop”, it’s just the laws of exponentials. Instead of calling me names, show me where my mathematical derivation is wrong, and I’ll concede to your point. Otherwise, this is just a fan being a fan. I’ll wait.
@@identitywithheld4327 why would I argue with u about “your math” when Terrence already did it! He literally just did Joe Rogan interview for 3 hours explaining EVERYTHING he’s been saying and yet yall still get on this internet bullshitting instead of trying to convert what u know and what he’s saying and make sense of it for our youth! If he’s so wrong how the hell did he figure out the flower of life, how is he able to have an intelligent conversation on all the huge platforms, universities, scientist etc but he’s full of it? Come on now. Maybe just maybe what we’ve been taught just may be wrong or just how about other people have figured out questions scientist have had for thousands of years!
@@JDwhatsnew And the "maybe, just, maybe" statement is the opportunity for the grift. He is mystifying the math to those who don't know how it works. I am supposed to test his hypothesis, and see if it is a legitimate claim. There is nothing spooky about it, his so-called "loop" is just the law of exponents. As for the patents. I'm supposed to believe he has ALL THESE multi-TRILLION dollar patents but failed to pay the fees? This means he DOESN'T have patents. At best, he has FILED for a patent. Not the same thing. I have two patent ideas myself that I never filed. I can't claim those ideas AFTER the fact. But don't take my word for it, just prove my math wrong. I already de-mystified that "loop" claim, show me where MY claim is incorrect.
Terence Howard is one of a kind I believe he's a genius. And he made a lot of sense to me. People always say people who are different are crazy. People who are different see the light they are chosen. Thank you Terrence Howard For sharing your knowledge.
Even as kid we question these things yet we get told, it's right just because we say so.
Or you were just a child and still think like a child
@@Birdbussa or its time to evolve and change the way we do things or does that scare you "change"
@@Birdbussa and I bet you believe that the great pyramid of Giza was just a tomb for a king just like you were told to believe so.
@@chriscolby4578Literally everything he said in his math segment was just spewing nonsense. Anybody who has gone through proper algebra knows there is no “mathematical fallacy” in his loop
A square that’s 1 unit by 1 unit gives an area of one square unit .
If I hand someone one dollar, one time, they’re up one dollar.
If I overlap one horizontal line with one vertical line, they intersect once.
If I do 11x11 I get a number ending in one for some reason.
If I fill up a checkerboard with one row and one column, one square is filled up.
If I multiply any two odd numbers together, the product is always odd.
Seems to work in every application. But 1x1=2 because of energy or something
Multiplication is the question: How many objects is a single object in groups of itself what number of times?
How many apples are 4 groups of 5 apples? 20, right?
How many apples are 1 group of 1 apples?
Linguistically, that question doesn't make any sense. It's either undefined or zero GROUPS of apples.
Terrance seems to just take the word group to mean more than one object. So the minimum for objects within a group is 2.
He also makes the point that only 1 and 0 have heuristics that are not imperical, just dogmatic. Multiply something by 1, and it equals itself. Multiply something by 0, and it equals 0.
Why do you know from A x B = B
That A equals 1? Why, imperically, not dogmatically?
Why do you know from A x B = A
That A equals 0? How do you know that besides the dogmatic repetition, that zero times anything equals zero?
Why can't you do that with ANY other number?
These are the crazy questions that everyone just laughs off instead of working through imperically.
@@JackTheMimic say what
@@humanbean3 I don't know if you literally didn't read it, or you don't understand what is written there. Lol
@@JackTheMimic I can't understand the point you're making. I'm not smart but I can usually understand stuff If I try hard enough. I know 0 times of something is 0 empirically and dogmatically. I know 1 times of something is that something empirically and dogmatically.
I kind of understand not liking the word "multiply" because it has a different definition when not used in math context though.
@@humanbean3 @humanbean3 When you express 1 x 1 = 1 you are saying 1 group of 1. But grouping can't occur this way it's singular, so the expression becomes void through that context. 1=1 not 1x1=1. The equation implies that there is more then one, otherwise we wouldn't get 1x1=1 or 1=1 it would just be 1. They made a mistake putting 0 or x at the base of the multiplication table, because it should just be represented as 1, there should never be a 1x1. Why have 0 if nothing exists in the first place, you got a group of nothing so how dumb were we to group nothingness and then calculate everything off nothing, so 256 of what couldve been multiplied by 0 (representing the groups) is equal to 0. Or 256 groups full of nothing, 0 = 0. What? Then to go 1x1=1, 1 is 1, its not 1 is 1 equals 1. This is why he gets you to "square root" 2 and and cube the result (not square it). 1Group x 1Thing = 1thing doesn't make sense, why group 1 thing. How did you isolate 1 thing into 1 group and ignore what you isolated it from.
He was good in Electric Dreams TOO!
Multiply does NOT mean make more. It means to create a set of equal groups with a given quantity. 1 group of 1 leaves you with one piece.
Colloquially, "multiply" means to increase in number or amount, often rapidly or significantly. For example, if you say "The rabbits multiplied quickly," it means that the number of rabbits increased rapidly. In everyday conversation, it generally implies any situation where something grows or increases in quantity.
@@webmatrix100 Right - Terrence thinks basic second grade mathematics is fundamentally flawed because he doesn't understand that the word "multiply" means one thing in general conversation and another thing in mathematics.
theres so such thing as a group of 1 a group of 1 lmfao a group signifies multiple theres no group if there is 1 whats so hard to get about that
@ semantics, dude
@@flymethelabel semantics, my dude.
To multiply means to "obtain from (a number) another that contains the first number a specified number of times" not in addition to. One, one time, is one. One, two times, is two. I think he's just hung up on what he thinks it means. Either way wouldn't it be easier for him to change the definition of what he thinks it means to multiply, rather than creating "new math"?
This story and content will be my favorite for many years. He is something else. 😅
So if 1x1=2 than 1÷1=0. So any number multiplied by 1 is not multiplication but addition. And dividing by 1 is subtraction.
1x1=1square. 1:1=1at power 0. The first îs a plane, the second a point
@@iulia1690except numbers are dimensionless. 1×1=1÷1=1. When you say something like: 1cm×1cm=1cm^2 but 1cm÷1cm=1.
guys the difference is he's trying to multiply number on number, not number on time, it's whole different system in both cases math is correct it means that second initial doesn't have time properties but number's which is quantity, while time has different properties as a whole of itself which can merge with a one, if you ate 1 apple 1 time then you ate 1 apple because time can merge of itself but if you multiply money on money then it's a different story
He's a special kind of stupid
That’s the realization that I came to as well, but now I’m having trouble wrapping my head around how you can multiply a unit times another unit. If I multiply 2 dollars by 3 dollars do I have $5 or $6? Is unit x unit just addition? Can I multiply 2 cats by 2 bananas?
Yes he is folling people who are bad in math. Example from 1 grade. One boy recived 1 candy twice (1*2) and Second 1 candy once (1*1) who has more candies.
His evaluation about linear math is also wrong 1m*1m is 1m2, a square. 1m*1m*1m =1m3 a cube. We have it covered. As for 4D (adding time) I am not sure what is the status currently but math sciencienst know it's there ;)
You can't technicaly multiple 2banana with 3 oranges. You can do muliplocation 3*2 banana or 2*3oranges, wheres first number is muliplicator not object.
@@baassiia see that's what i said, you provided me example that multiply on time with a candy, once or twice is a time while Terrence challenges multiplying object by object or action by action, but in our math second initial is just a time, it doesn't mean our math is wrong though
@@richardzakh7209 if you insist to multiple then you can do banan =x, strawberry =y. 3x*2y = 6xy which is nor banana nor strawberry just fruit salad. Overall usfullness of that is real life is minimal, that doesn't mean it not exist in math. I gave you other example with metric system when usfullness is obvious 2mx2m = 4m2, a square.
Much Respect to you Mr. HOWARD. I proposed this same idea to a mayoral candidate years ago. HE said he was extremely interested in my idea, and he would call me, but never called. I was even willing to donate my own personal equipment for the children's development. I've since moved out of that city. Most inner city legislation is not interested in truly helping out troubled youth. SMH
YOU ARE OUR TRUE HERO!!! ❤🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🎖🏅🥇🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻👏👏👏👏👏👏🙌🙌🙌💣🤜💥🤛💫🧨🎆 Soooo sorry to heat this, I hope this Dude CALLS 📞 YOU!!! AND INVITES YOU & INCLUDES YOU!!!
Unfortunately Terrence's thought process and logic is flawed here. Its simply a mistake in the mathematical concept of multiplication. I have provided a full proof and explanation above in the comments.
@@anthonyricciardo 1 times 1 OCCURENCE. It's very simple, pretend there is a vending machine with apples in it, if you get a ticket that says 5 on it, you get to press the button on the machine 5 times till you use all the credits. If you get a ticket with 1 apple on it, how many apples do you get? 1 or 2?
@@Pax_Mayn3 not sure what you are talking about… but one ticket gets you one apple. If you have a ticket and already have an apple, you end up with 2… 1 apple from the machine and 1 apple that you started with?
@@anthonyricciardoisn’t that 1+1?
Howard knows just enough to “think” he knows more than he actually does
1x1 will never equal 2. Yes it’s multiplication and implies a “multiple” result, but that is a failure of terminology, not math.
Terrence Howard legitimately confused arithmetic definition of multiplication with the noun multiply. He think multiplication is the same as creating more. Someone should have explained to him when he was a kid that multiplication in terms of math is nothing but addition with fewer steps. 1x1=1 because this literally means 1, one time. 2x2 = 4 because it means 2 two times. A better way to explain is to replace the multiplication symbol with "sets of." Instead of 1x1, say "1 set of 1."
2x2 is 2 sets of 2 or (2+2).
2x3 is 2 sets of 3 or (3+3).
2x5 is two sets of 5 or (5+5),
3x5 is 3 sets of 5 or (5+5+5),
4x6 is 4 sets of 6 or (6+6+6+6)so on and so forth.
Don't sniff your own farts and think they smell like rose pedals. Otherwise you'll end up like Terrence Howard.
@@BenChokin I'm not sure why I said noun lol, I meant verb.
Of course 1x1 is one. One times a unit of one is... one. I.e I want one time of a unit of a crate of milk, so I get one crate. If I want two times a crate of milk, I get 2 crates...
If that’s the case 1*1 is improbable and doesn’t actually exist as an equation. It’s similar to 0*1. If you start with 0 why include it in an equation??
@@KPSavant1xanything and 0xanything exist if you look at what multiplication properly. You are asking to manipulate a number’s base value by a percentage. If you x1, the base value is remaining at that value (100% of the number), hence 1x1=1. 1x2 is base 1 increased by 1 (100%+100% or 1+1=2) thus 1x2=2. 50% increase would be 1x1.5=1.5, the base plus another half of the base.
For 0xanything, 0 your base so any percentage increase or decrease is a change on the 0, and is still 0. If you’re saying there is no point because any percentage change to a base of 0 is still 0, then you’re right and that’s why everyone knows how to multiply 0 to anything real fast.
@@KPSavantif i give you one apple one time, how many apples did i give you?
@@DerekToro I get that. But if I give you one apple zero times then we have the existence of you owning an apple but having zero apples. Does that make sense?? 1x1 and 1x0 should not exist. 3x2 is 2+2+2 right?? So 1x1 is essentially supposed to be 1+1 but is equal to 1+0!! Doesn’t make sense to me. So really it’s an improbable equation. 1x1=1+0 which is an improper equation.
@@shnikes66 answer this, why does 1x1 = 1+0 which is an improbable equation. It should not exist because it doesn’t follow the true laws of mathematics.
"That's a mathematical fallacy," but it's not. First 2x =x+x is literally the definition of 2x. Second x³ = 2x is just an equation you can solve for x. There are 3 answers: 0 and plus or minus the square root of 2.
x³ = 2x
x³-2x = 2x-2x
x³-2x = 0
x(x²-2) = 0
x = 0 (first solution)
x²-2 = 0
x²-2+2=0+2
x²=2
√x² = √2
x = ±√2 (the last two solutions).
And you can check all three work. It's not a fallacy, it's basic algebra. Like how taking 1, 1 time is 1, is just basic arithmetic.
This is not algebra, read Walter Russell.
@@trustyWeedGuy
1) This is algebra, I learned it in algebra, and you could find problems like this in algebra textbooks.
2) You're gonna need to be more specific. That name can actually bring up multiple results. If I told you to read Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, that wouldn't narrow down what I mean at all.
3) What point are you attempting to make?
@@irish3353 Same name, different process. Let's call this 'newMultiplication' , just for fun:
'newMultiplication' is an independent Procedure/Action/Effect/ in itself.
'newMultiplication' is indeed related to the the classical procedure of 'classicalMultiplication' in algebra (i.e: 4x3=4 things existing 3 times=4 times 3=Value 4 three times itself=4+4+4=12), because it is *half of the whole 'newMultiplication' procedure* . *But only half* . This can be deduced from the graphic representation (end of the post).
'newMultiplication' can be defined as the mathematical representation of the process of the cell division. It's just *that process represented in numeric code* , it's symmetrical to what we call in Biology 'binary fission' to define the event of 'cell multiplication' (or division!): the procedure of 'cell multiplication' implies for *1 cell* to 'self-reproduce' or 'self-replicate' into (at least) *2 cellS* ; it would always start from 1 original unit (original cell or 'base') and *Multiply* into a minimum of 2 units (cellS). Since 'No cells' or '0 cells' can't either be 'multiplied' nor 'divided'. Therefore, there wouldn't be 2 cells without 1 cell first, and there wouldn't be 1 if 'nothing=0' was true (which it isn't in nature) because spontaneous generation is false. Ergo, first, there must always be 'something' as 'base' (as reference, as a basic unit from which to either start dividing or multiplying).
'newMultiplication' first numeric value (what in 'classicalMult' we call the 'multiplicand') now becomes the 'Base Unit' or number of 'Units' from which we will start operating, ergo applying the 'nM' procedure. This base units value must always be higher than '0', because this procedure is to replicate the laws of nature, and as we've just explained, in order to multiply there must already be something, because 'something can't come out of nothing or viceversa'.
'newMultiplication' second numeric value (what in 'classicalMult' we call the 'multiplier') now becomes the number of times the new whole effect is to be applied to the first numeric value (base unit), we could call it 'Replicant'. This value can be 0 because it would simply imply that neither procedure has been applied at all and therefore the 'Base' value would remain unaffected.
* 'newMultiplication' can be defined as the sum of 2 simple prodecures: 'classicalMultiplication' + 'original Base value' *
The reason why 'newMultiplication' resolves by dragging the 'base' value deeper into the operation and adding it to the common known value obtained by applying our 'classicMultiplication' is: that Base Unit is the common factor in all things, that first unit or cell of 'what we call matter' must be, before anything takes place. It is the first Unit, the first '1' in all things.
So, From a base of 1 cell, whenever it 'multiplies' once, it always produces/results in at least 2 cells. Each single cell (unit) if 'newMultiplied' once, will always offer no less than 2 cells. From a Base of 1 it 'multipllies' 1 time because it'll 1 will split/divide into 2):
*X 'newMultiplication' Y times = X 'classicalMultiplication' Y times + X base value*
1 cell 'newMultiplied' 1 time = 2 cells
Basic examples:
Unit = Base = Original Cell // 'newMultiplication' = Cell Division // Times = Replicants
1 unit 'newMultiplied' 1 time = 1 new unit + 1 original unit = 2 units
1 unit 'newMult' 2 times = 2 new units + 1 original unit = 3 units
2 units 'newMult' 2 times = 4 new units + 2 og. units = 6 units
2 units 'newMult' 3 times = 6 new units + 2 og. units = 8 units
3 units 'newMult' 3 times = 9 new units + 3 og. units = 12 units
3 units 'newMult' 4 times = 12 new units + 3 og. units = 15 units
And so forth.
Try to draw it on a piece of paper. Represent 'units' with consecutive circles and every 'newAction' as a straight line halving them, or better yet, stretch them as consecutive ovaloids and cut through them with straight lines to represent each 'newMultiplication'. It's easy and clear. Also satisfies the symmetry in which you're both multiplying and diving with just one operation. Ideally, you'd represent it virtually on a sphere.
This is how very ancient Egyptians used to do their calculations. It's fun and eye opening to play with it and watch the 'Multi-Division' happen. Research Walter Russel.
Crazy begins at 22:30
🐐
@@TimothyC.84 he did invent a new form a flight
@@sik787 No he did not lol
@@sik787 He claims that. Seems like he swindled Uganda. It's been 2 years.
@@calokid ive reasearched videos dating back 4 years he talks about it, then puts out a competition for a tangent drone. I have not seen or heard of this shape drones.
"Addition" means "to supplement" or "to make more of", right? That means that 1 + 0 = 2.
He obviously hasn't done high school mathematics, 2^(1/2) * 2 is the same as 2^(1/2) * (2^1) witch is the same as 2^(3/2) witch is the same as (root2)^3 . Then dividing by 2 = root 2 witch is just undoing the previous step. I don't get his point??
x³ = 2x
x³ - 2x = 0
x(x² - 2) = 0
x = 0 and x² - 2 = 0
x² = 2
x = ±1.414
Makes sense. This is why kids should pay attention in school
Greatest quote of all time
“Am I crazy or is the calculator broken”
- Terrance Howard
Hes crazy
@@SchMasHed nah the calculator can’t handle the truth.
@@cheezius3357 The calculator is largely responsible for your ability to leave a comment on a video that you watched on the internet LMFAO
@@SchMasHed ok but that has nothing to do with the point of my comment. Anyways have a good one 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
@@cheezius3357 It has verything to do with it. You're saying calcs are not correct. If they were not correct, all this ICT would not work
I saw some comments on Professor Dave Explains' channel about some nutjob named Terrence Howard, and I just assumed: oh, surely that's not the ACTOR Terrence Howard who stars as Rhodie in the first Iron Man movie (2008). So I did a search on YT just now... OH FUCKING SHIT! It IS the same person! MY GOD it proves acting requires NO BRAINS!
He should try taking on the role of a sane person.
New math Square root 2 = 1.4142135623
1.4142135623 X to the third 3rd Power = 2.28427121746190 Now divided by 2
Hit Equal now Cube it again hit x to the 3 yeah Do You See that Loop? Yeah that's saying X Cub is equal to 2x which is equal to x + x that's an Unnatural Equation that's a Mathematical Fallacy that's the "beginning of your math" that's how I invented tangential flight.
when a number is "to the second power" it is multiplied by itself. It is NOT multiplied by 2. So he is wrong, it is not "2x", that is entirely a different math problem, and he simply doesn't understand what exponents are. It is extremely basic, and clearly wrong to anyone who understands the concept.
This man needs help. My love one has the same mental health issue. It's a combination of schizophrenia, narcissism, and dunning-kruger. Very complex but certainly a mental health issue. It's sad.
He's wrong. To answer as clearly as possible -
7 x 7: This is a true multiplication scenario. We have 7 groups, each with 7 items. Multiplying these quantities gives us a total of 49 items (7 x 7 = 49).
1 x 1: This isn't a typical multiplication scenario. Here, we only have 1 group and 1 item. We're not really multiplying anything; we're simply acknowledging the existence of a single item.
Key takeaway:
1 x 1 = 1 establishes the presence of a single unit.
7 x 7 = 49 represents the total after multiplying multiple groups of units.
While they don't directly correlate in a strict multiplication sense, 1 x 1 lays the groundwork for understanding multiplication as repeated addition.
You also can't do multiplication like 21×10 without 1×1=1.
This is a good representation of how horrible our education standards have become while also indulging in utter schizoidal nonsense.
It scares me how right u are.
Prove him wrong then
If u have one apple and I multiply the apple by a value of one u still only have one apple. Some how Terrance doesn't understand basic math.
Alternate title: Terrence Howard needs to go back to elementary school.
You lack the iq to grasp this concept and that's fine lil bro
The reaction to his words is probably even more worrying. Not only a lot of people seem to completely lack the basic common sense required to suspect that an actor with no math training or education didn't just prove all physicists and mathematicians in the world wrong, but they can't even figure out that he's wrong when he claims that 1x1=2. I mean, I'm sorry, but I almost can't imagine lower bars than understanding that this guy is full of crap and he doesn't make any sense, and yet lots of people still don't clear that bar.
@@erraticentertainmentnah terrence is wrong. 1×1=0!
Always said that empire and hustle and flow were a continuation 🔥
Yessss! You said it!! 🙌🏽
Continuation of what? his brain rot and disordered ego? lmao
Warum sind beide Ergebnisse gleich?
Der Schlüssel liegt in den algebraischen Eigenschaften von Wurzeln und Potenzen:
• \sqrt{2} ist per Definition die Zahl, die mit sich selbst multipliziert 2 ergibt, also (\sqrt{2})^2 = 2.
• Wenn wir \sqrt{2} hoch 3 nehmen, haben wir eine zusätzliche Multiplikation mit \sqrt{2}, was 2 \sqrt{2} ergibt.
In beiden Fällen haben wir 2 \sqrt{2}. Das ist ein grundlegendes Resultat aus der Kombination von Wurzeln und Exponenten. Mathematisch ausgedrückt, ist:
\sqrt{2} \times 2 = 2 \sqrt{2}
(\sqrt{2})^3 = (\sqrt{2})^2 \times \sqrt{2} = 2 \times \sqrt{2}
Deshalb liefern beide Berechnungen dasselbe Ergebnis.
Why didn't they stop and correct him the moment he said to multiply is to "increase the number"?
Just because you use the same number as X in two different formulas and you get the same answer it does not mean that X in different formulas will always get the same answer in all formulas. It is like saying that because a car is an automobile and and truck is an automobile then a car and a truck are the same thing. It is not a fallacy in math it is a fallacy of how you are interpreting the math in this particular instance.
If you ask for a vehicle, I could give you a horse technically.
All you have to do is specify what you're talking about before you do the math.
1 vehicle = any vehicle
What do you want, a car or a truck?
A fast car? Nascar?
Expensive? Cheap?
Narrow down your options by adding specification. Then you'd have a range of options to choose from.
The real problem is you don't understand choice. The word "vehicle" makes car = truck = bike = horse = plane.
Specify the type of vehicle and you'll eliminate that problem.
If you don't know what you want, you'd look through a broader lens of vehicles.
X still will never be the same even if their are 2 replica cars of the same brand in the same warehouse, made by the same machine, with the same materials.
This car and that car have different values even still.
Multiplying is what the MACHINES do, not the cars themselves.
Each multiplication makes similar outcomes, but each outcome is independent and exclusive. The two cars might look, perform, and weigh the same, but they are different.
@@OrganicReasoning I can understand that and expand a little. A vehicle as you said is a term associated with a variable. Like X in a formula you do not know what it is until you discover the conditions: 2x=? If your formulas suggests 2x=4 Then you know x=2. But I did not mention "Vehicle" I mentioned "Automobile". Splitting hairs I know, but that is what we are doing anyway. The term Automobile did narrow down the variables to a certain type of "Vehicle". The solution is in the formula 1x will have X one time. 2x will have X+X. 3X will have X+X+X. We can substitute "Vehicle" for X if you like. 1vehicle , 2Vehicles, 3Vehicles etc The number (Or Multiple) denotes how many of those vehicles you have. Edit, I do understand the concept that even if you have a real world object and you have 2 of those objects they may not be "Exactly" the same even if they use the same components from the same factory in the same "Lot" or built in the same time frame. I am a musician and have had the experience of using two different amplifiers of the same make and model set the same and one sounds fantastic and the other sucks. I was at practice with a friend who usually kicks butt on guitar and we accidentally got our amplifiers mixed up(Both amplifiers were his). All through the practice he kept screwing up because the sound was not "Right" on the other hand I was doing some pretty amazing things that people commented on. Only after practice we found that I was using the Amplifier that My friend usually used. There were identifying marks to distinguish which amp was which. My friend purposely made a way to identify which was which when he bought them.
@mdew24 I love it because music is something that helped me see multiplication!
Amplification is a form of multiplication.
I know you were talking about the Amps themselves, but Amps multiply sound.
The sound can be changed in amplification, but the original note is kept as reference everytime.
The point is, the math we have works but it's incomplete. Mathematics is not congruent with the laws of motion and relativity. Creative minds have been debating for centuries to unite these three disciplines. The fact we can't interstellar travel is based on our understanding of the universe and mathematical principles of space travel. This will require precision that we don't have currently with the system.
Unfortunately Terrence's thought process and logic is flawed here. Its simply a mistake in the mathematical concept of multiplication. I have provided a full proof and explanation above in the comments. The mathematics is complete, as it is based in simple arithmetic.
There is no point here. His thought process and basic knowedge is just wrong
Maths isn't supposed to. Numbers are a human creation.
They are not a law of physics.
Mang, great to be here mang
Im tha only muddafarkin sekurity up in ere mane 😂
stupid, multiply is not to make more, it is to count how many repeated occurance in the group. it does not mean it is making more or making less definitely, for example, if you multiply by a fraction do you make more? no, you make less
He’s seeing 2 number ones and just adds them together 😅. He acts so enlightened like his really did it 😅
Is 1x Terrence = 2 Terrances? No, it's just 1 of him, 1 Terrance. Is one of me times 1 equal 2 of me? No, only 1 of me.
What dimension ? you can in meta
@@prodgroovyCHU, can we have that in English?
Or any coherent language (Google with translate).
@@Madonnalitta1 bro got nobody to talk to rn
I would love to watch a Terrence Howard show full of educational content.
I'd love this as well!
You mean a show full of misconceptions and mistakes of concepts? Yeah, that would be entertaining. Would give me enough content to start my own RUclips channel dedicated to explaining in simple terms where the mistake is.
😂😂
😂😂 people are so dumb.. so you think Einstein didn't think of why 1x1= 1 its an easy explanation.
the man memorized 2 numbers in a calculator and he a genius .. let me see him do math.. with out a calculator. always talking about the same dam thing. the fact that yall dont know how 1x1=1
The reason the number stays the same is because multiplying by 1 means we have 1 copy of the number. mtf confusing adding and multiplying 😂😂 still cant wrap his head around of why having one copy of a number equals that number .. ahhhh maybe cuse you have a copy of one number bro 😂
I love hero 6 that's one of me and favorite Disney movies❤❤❤
If I eat one apple, one time have I eaten two apples or have I eaten one apple twice?
no you have eaten 1 apple once as you said but if you google multiplication it's different, it says Multiplication - A mathematical operation that indicates how many times a number is added to itself, the thing is he proposes different math which do not multiply number on time but multiply number on number, it becomes confusing when time is involved because in conventional decimal Multiplication it is the case, it multiplies number on time and in that case it is correct, he is just proposing whole different system that initial has different properties, and yes it wouldn't contradict modern math anyway because we're talking about different equations
@@richardzakh7209 So what you’re saying is Terrence has created a new mathematical system is that what you’re saying?
@@outli3r692 a stupid one, but sure. If I say 23+4 is 87 I've also created one.
@@outli3r692 not sure but he points out on flaws like in everything as well we do have them, once again our math is correct but he just multiplies not on time but action times action, and not action times a time
1×1=1 because this question is asking you to give me 1 one time.
Think about it this way.
6x4= 24
This question asked you to give me 6 four times 6,6,6,6 =24
Now 4×6 = 24
This question asked you to give me 4 six time 4,4,4,4,4,4,=24
Multiplication is really not adding but you can add to understand getting the answer.
If that's doesn't help
Why would you give me 1 thing two times when I only asked you to give it to me once.
1x1=1
1×1= 1
Either way I'm asking for a 1 one time don't give me 2.
I love this guy but his knowledge about math is beyond lame. And what's sad, is that everyone around him is even worse.
OK, so 2X2 is 2 then. This only occurs with 1X1. 2X2 is 4 and 3x3 is 9, 4X4 16. It is expanding. We agree that multiplication is exaggerated/shorter version of addition. Or is 3x3 =6. Please explain. 1X1 is 2 if you add or multiply right. The same is true if you do 2x2. It's 4 whether you add or multiply. Is that what he is saying although he does not talk investigate 2. But once you get to 3, then 3X3 is 9 and it cannot be 6 if you decide to add the two numbers. But if you do 3X3X3 which is what 3X3 means it is 27.
1×1=2×2=4 😂
Watch the Joe Rogan podcast with him
Man this comments section is actually one of the better ones I've seen. It's terrifying on other channels like 95% of comments are literally agreeing with him.
Really? My experience has been that he’s getting mocked in the comments everywhere his JRE clip is. He’s getting it worse than the flat earth people get it 🤣🤣🤣
@Johnny2Feathers dude, people are supporting the crazy shit that terrence howard guy said like 90% in the comments I know it's insane.
@Johnny2Feathers I just basically restated my original comment I guess. It seems we agree, but I'm saying this comment section seems to have more people with a full set of chromosomes and no extra.
Same!!! I was like, what is wrong with all of these people?! They believe anything.
"To multiply means to do what?... to make more, right?". Not if you're multiplying by a number less than 1, Sparky.
It does not strictly mean to "make" more; rather, it means to increase in numbers. This increase can occur for various reasons, whether naturally, as in the case of rabbits multiplying, or artificially, such as drilling more holes. In mathematics, however, it signifies something entirely different.
The thing Terrance doesn’t realize about Multiplying is at its basic form is simply grouping. For instance 2x4 is simply 2 groups of 4 or 4 groups of 2 which both equal 8. Back to 1 we have 1 group of 3 or 3 groups of 1 which is 3. Then at last 0 groups of 3 or 3 groups of 0 which is 0
24:18 not necessarily, it describes how often a thing exists
This is the most intelligent failure of grade school math ever espoused.
Please do tell
@@arctyler2245if I receive 1 dollar for 1 day how many dollars do I have?
Terence Howard defination of multiplication: " To make more..."
Terrance Howard proof of a fundamentally flawed mathematical system and the basis of Terrology: "Cool calculator trick to wow your friends"
Yeah, he's stuck up in his own ass
It's not even a cool calculator trick, but a simple equation:
x^3 = 2x, div both sides by x:
x^2 = 2, take square root:
x = sqrt(2)
So in order for cubing x to be the same as multiplying x by two, x must be the square root of two.
EDIT: To be precise, the equation has three solutions:
x = sqrt(2)
x = -sqrt(2)
x = 0
If anyone is reading this and maybe be a bit confused by math notation, that totally normal… math difficult for many people, you can think of x^3 as 3 x’s being multiplied by eachother so x times x times x which is commonly represented as (x*x*x) using the astrix to represent multiplication. Since we dont know the value if x since it is a variable, you cannot divide it by two and reduce it to (x*x), that would only work if the value of x was 2. Dont let this terrence moron make you an idiot too…
@@thumuslol No one's dividing x^3 by 2 to get x^2.
@@miikavihersaari3104consumption = time ²
1 stands alone and is the first if you multiply it by itself it is still itself because it’s number one one time {1x1},1x2 = 1 two times.Why are we constantly forgetting basic things as humans and possessed with creating fantasies.
for those that did not understand .. multiplication is a form of addition. Multiplication is an addition of like amounts. example 2+2+2 = 6 / 2 x 3 = 6 ... the problem he is talking about is that the problem starts with number 1 ... 1+1 = 2 yet 1x 1 = 1 ? if you did not understand let me make it more simple.. 7x7 = 49 why do we use multiplication ? so we do not have to use addition .. 7+7+7+7+7+7+7 = 49 .. so i hope you understood the problem . 1+1 = 2 so why is 1x1 = 1 .. that is where the problem starts
That doesn’t make sense because 7x1=7 not 8. 1Xa means 1 set of a… so 2xa=2a… if a could be 1 of 1000
Multiplication just shows you how many TIMES you need a specific number or material in an equation, for example “1x1” is saying the number 1 is being SHOWN 1 time. What ever the first number is being multiplied by is the number of how many times it is being shown or given, Like “2x2” is the number 2 being shown twice which would equal 4, if it was shown once (2x1) it would just equal 2, that’s why in reverse (1x2) the number 1 shown ((2 times)) so it would equal 2
That’s why (1x0) or ANY number ever would just be that number shown 0 TIMES, which is nothing😂
@@aTauriansengan you are on the money mate.. that is the problem.. because we are not doing math so it suits us .. there are many loops in math this is just one of them..
@@apathy11303 agree .. you just proved what he is saying :) it does not make sense in the established human law
Lets splve for x, now shall we?
x³ = 2x
x³ - 2x = 0
x(x² - 2) = 0
x = {0, -sqrt(2), sqrt(2)}
There is no surprise he chose the square root of two as his example, because its a splution of this answer. It does NOT imply, however, that this is true for all numbers.
I think that’s part of the why he’s saying that there’s a problem because the formula is not consistent even at this basic level. Im about to study his other material to gather more before dismissing it
@@msjazzy89 No, it isn't a formula. It's just an equation. If you took a 6th grade math class you would know that equations only ever have infinite solutions where the same value equals itself. Such as x = x.
In the video, Terrence asserts that it doesn't make sense for the square root of two cubed be equivalent to the square root of two times two. However, in my explanation it makes perfect sense. He makes a logical fallacy, asserting that x³ = 2x is equivalent to sqrt(2)³ = 2 * sqrt(2).
He uses this logical fallacy, for people like you, who don't understand the underlying math, to make it seem like there is something fundamentally wrong with how our math works. However, critical thinking demonstrates otherwise.
@@jtris01 I majored in Math, so formula and equation can be used interchangeably... If you went to kindergarten you would know this🙄. You should visit his site and read the entire proof and other literature he’s referencing, because your brain seems to not be able to grasp the conceptual understanding of his assertions.
@@msjazzy89you did not major in math. He has a very simple misunderstanding of how square roots function. If you took even basic high school algebra and did well, you would understand his mistake.
You don't need to go through all that to see why Howard is confused. It's more about how square roots function.
The square root of 2 can be written as 2^(1⁄2). It's the same thing.
Just a plain 2 is the same thing as 2^(2⁄2) because the 2/2 is equal to 1. But when you multiply numbers with exponents, the exponents are added together, so:
2^(1⁄2) x 2 is the same thing as 2^(3⁄2), which is also the same thing as (2^(1⁄2))^3 or the square root of 2, cubed.
Terrance just does not understand math.
1 group of 1 apple gives… 1 apple in total.
I think. Let me just check my work here. Oh yep, still equals 1 😂
1X1=1 no argument
Well in our current way of thinking it does.. what he's suggesting though is 1 group of 1 apples = 1 group of 1 apples = 2 separate things = 1 group + 1 apple. You don't now have 0 groups of 1 apples or 1 group of 0 apples. The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. With that way of understanding, it makes sense.
I might not be a mathematician... but 1X1[will always][= 1.
I thing his not understanding the language of math. if I had to solve (1X3= or 3X1), I would say 1+1+1= or 3 =, if this math looks wrong to you, then WOO to you.
No disrespect To Terrence Howard, but stick to acting.
@@AP_Designs shrooms or acid?
If you give a person 1 apple they could share and grow more with the seeds......or a person could be selfish and eat the apple and waste the seeds, then yeah one =one.....or one could equal a lot to one person....
There's a story in the bible about Talents......check it out......
Jesus feed thousands with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish....😂😂😂sometimes its not what you got but what ro do with it...... KATT Williams been on tour 19 yrs and pays well self owned business and supports other comedians....that One man multiplied his Talent ❤❤❤
26:52 Pick it up here: "Because somebody programed that lie in there." 🎤 Terrence Howard (He's unveiling a critical portion of the truth, which is prophesied to set us free.)
If i have 1 apple and divide it literally 1 time i got 2 halve apples, wich makes 1/1=0.5
If i have 1 apple and MULTIPLY it 1 time i have 2 apples, wich makes 1x1=2
If i have 0 apples and try to divide or multiply nothing happens because there are no apples.
So if multiplying and dividing are opposites of each other it makes sense.
1: That's dividing the apply into 2 slices, hence dividing it by 2, the denominator is not the number of times you cut, it's how many "pieces" you're splitting the numerator into.
2: that's addition, try this, if I give you 1 apple, 1 time, how many apples have I given you? if I give you 2 apples 1 time, how many have I given you? If you get paid at a job at a rate of 1 dollar an hour, and you for one hour, how much do you make?
No, it doesn't, it also doesn't match direct observation.
1×1 = 2 implies that energy is created. 1×1 is one, one meaning 1+0 which equals one. 1×4 is 1+1+1+1.
But you got rid of energy with that 1×1=1=1+0 putting 0 you took away from the first equation. 1×1=2=1+1 would be the correct way with what he's saying.
So technically the 0 should take the place of 1
He does not understand multiplication expresses how many TIMES something exists. If a dollar exists in my pocket one time I only have it once. If it exists zero times it doesn't exist. Hence the word times.
@@chrishanson1631 but if you take 1 existence × 1 existence you get 2. You can't have 1 chicken × 1 chicken and only have 1 chicken
@@eskimogoma you are multiplying a chicken by another chicken. That is addition not multiplication. You add apples to other apples. You multiply by factors of integers.
@@chrishanson1631isn't saying the same for 2×2 = 4 is that not also addition? What you're saying makes sense for just numbers, but if we use it to calculate other things such as energy you can't just get rid of it. We use multiplication to calculate more then just numbers. We use it in science and geometry. What he's saying is fun to think about. Not saying he's right, I like debating on possibilities. Even if it's nonsense hahaha
I like his ideas, but in this case, I think the math equation is clear : 2*√(2) - (√2)^3 = 0 which means they are igual!!
explanation : (√2)^2 =2 because of sqrt elevated by sq (2) which make then (sqrt(2))^(3) = (sqrt(2))^(2) * sqrt(2) => 2 * sqrt(2) what explain the "loop"
similar is also 5*√(5) = (√5)^3 or A*√(A) = (√A)^3
I am not sure what he wants to prove here, but this is the algebra explanation....
6:12 “I’m just doing it to mess with everybody” - Terrence the worlds biggest troll
If multiply means to increase... Im not mad at it. 1x1=2 makes allt of sense to me
Yeah, but it doesn't mean to increase.
Well, that's cool, but that's not what multiplication is.
@@arthursgarage6550 but, except it does.
When you multiply does the number increase, decrease, or stay the same?
@@truthsyrum4859 No, it isn't, I can give at least a hundred examples of where 1 * 1 = 1, and I can show in multiple ways how 1 * 1 = 2 leads to geometrical, and algebraic contradictions.
I know modern magicians can fool many with slight of hand, illusions, and misdirection. It's entertaining and mystifying all at the same time. This nonsense however, is both depressing to see people buy into, and even worse when they don't realize they'll eventually be roped into helping him fund one of his ideas that "the government doesn't want you to know about." Yikes
When will somebody tell him, that that was a flaw in *his logic* and *not* the fundamental mathematical law. He keps perpetuating his logical mistake, even published a book and nobody still told him, that his logic is flawed. :D
He prob don't listen to real mathematicians and want to make money from his books
Multiplication is not add A by the number of times B says. Multiplication explains how many times A exists. If A exists one time you just have one A. If A exists 2 times you have 2 A's. If A exists 0 times you have 0 A's.
So if my car and your car are parked next to each other and your car (1) is multiplied by my car (1) one of us lost our car.
@@spamm0145 why would you multiply two different cars together? I would use addition. Not multiplication. Multiplication uses factors, not likes. You multiply one car by a FACTOR of one you have one car.
@@spamm0145 1 car * 1 car = 1 car²
You would never do this, because it just don't has any real world use case. car² is a different unit than car.
But you could do:
1 * 1car = 1 car
Meaning one instance of one car equals one car.
Chris u the Man ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Great interview
This fool is getting addition and multiplication mixed up. Lol this is literally crazy. It’s like the flat earth all over again lol. If you have one plus one that means you’re adding another one if you’re multiplying a number by itself and nothing has been added, there’s no addition it’s just multiplication and 1+1 can’t be the same as 1×1
A man caught so deeply in his own thoughts....he is living it out on us.... the DISCONNECT from reality is painful to watch...
Ok, so I looked at Terence Howard's math for the 2 loop. He seems to think this violates something, I don't know, he also stated you can't do it with numbers above 2 (different interview), this is also not true. Terence just doesn't understand what is actually happening in his 2 loop example so he doesn't know how to write the proper equation. I worked it if anyone ever runs into feel free to share it with him. (The square root of X) multiplied by X = (The square root of X) multiplied by (The square root of X) multiplied by (The square root of X). This works with any number. For example if X=4, then it would be 2 times 4 = 2 times 2 times 2 or 8 = 8. Terence's statement of "an action times an action = a reaction" is also false. He is trying to imply that an action times 1 would equal a reaction, and this is also false. Because that equation states that there is only 1 action and you can not have a reaction under those circumstances. An action times 2 would equal a reaction because it is saying we have two actions we are combining together. 4x1 is the same as just writing the number 4, 4x2 is the same as 4+4, and 4x3 is the same as 4+4+4. If this looks simple it's because it is. Terence's mathematics work like this "1 times 1 more", that would correctly equal 2. The problem is that Terence thinks "one times one more" is the same as saying "1 times 1" and that is simply incorrect. Terence's Mathematical Mystery Solved.
If there is only one....why on earth....would an equation be necessary to represent "one" as the product of itself. And how does any unit of measurement, times itself successfully by producing an answer to an equation that has no other variable. That means, there is no problem. Not only is this conceptually crazy, One by one or 1x1 is redundant and there is no real world application of this other than geometric measurements and stats. Both of which still need separate variables in the form of dimensions and data respectively. Separate variables means 2 or more. Both of which cannot be 100% objectively accurate. But they are accurate enough for the world to function of course.
I understand what you wrote. The logic of such is rooted in the arithmetic the world has been taught. No doubt.
The fundamental problem is that we continue to believe what we are taught without authentic questioning and deeper curiosity. Only to discover our own science has been inaccurate for decades, decades later.
The reason arithmetic is worth questioning is because we are taught this is how we objectively assign value to a thing. What we fail to see somehow is that, we, humans, are also that which have been assigned a value.
And neither you, nor I, have been assigned a value, by ourselves, for ourselves, where an entire world population has agreed to honor. People even say things like "i and i" or "me against me" or the classic me, myself, and I. This is, in my opinion, a subconscious tactic to add value unto ourselves.
If i give you a dollar and tell you to multiply it by a dollar or times it by one dollar? And you do it, how much money will you have?
What i am saying is that questioning the identity property of a numerical value in the case of basic arithmetic, is worth the thought experiment. Considering we think we are a values based society, perhaps teaching people that one times ones does not produce any additional value in the case of basic math but somehow in monies, which is nothing but a perceived predetermined (but not by you) value system, functionally presents a psychological impairment of what value is and how it is measured.
All of which is determined for us, but not by
@Nofacemonk
First, let's address the philosophical aspects of your response. I agree that the fundamental problem is our current method of education. That we are taught to regurgitate information and not to actually think. I disagree that arithmetic is how we are taught to assign value or that arithmetic has anything to do with value. I want to curb any confusion and state I am using the word value the way you have implied its use, as to equate value with worth as an identity property of a numerical value.
You posed the question “If I give you a dollar and tell you to multiply it by a dollar or times it by one dollar? And you do it, how much money will you have?”
My answer is, that this is not how arithmetic works. The direct answer to it does not reveal an error, it instead reveals that the error is in the question. The problem arises when we are asked to “multiply it by a dollar”, as this is not how mathematics works. Yes, you can most certainly multiply by 1, but not by a dollar or duck or a moon. So why by 1 and not 1 dollar? Because 1, simply represents a number in our counting system, it is assigned no identity property.
I made a post here discussing this issue. This kind of problem is rooted in a misunderstanding of what multiplication is. In this example 2x1 the number 2 represents a declaration of the unit amount we will be using. Arithmetic does not care if we think of it as 2 dollars or 2 sticks, it only matters how many. This is why arithmetic can be used universally. 1 in the equation represents how many of the units we have. So the equation says we have 1 of the units and each unit was assigned 2.
You also posed that 1x1 is “conceptually crazy” and “is redundant and there is no real-world application”. 1x1 is redundant and unnecessary, but then what about this equation 1,234 times 11? You can only solve this equation if you are familiar with how to correctly multiply by 1. Demonstrating the obvious value of understanding 1x1.
You posed that “Separate variables means 2 or more”. In the context of multiplication 2x1, the variables speak nothing to the logic of the equation. Yes, we can say a variable times a variable, but the existence of two variables does not alter the logic of multiplication. This is why the question about multiplying a dollar by a dollar was incorrect. The multiplication logic only takes in an amount, not the identity property. All of this is to say an argument about how many variables are involved does not have an effect on the logic of the equation. An argument about the usefulness a particular equation has in real-world circumstances is just as irreverent to the equation's accuracy.
The takeaway is that multiplication or arithmetic does not take in the identity property of a numerical value. Any attempt to do so is to violate the logic of the equation. This is the error in the proposed thought process I was highlighting. The thought experiment of trying to gleem deeper understanding by incorrectly forcing additional identity property values into normal mathematics might be philosophically interesting but again, speaks nothing to the accuracy or inaccuracy of current mathematics.
Thank you for your reply Mr. T.D.H. Please feel free to reply if you feel I have made an error or if I misunderstood or misrepresented a point you were trying to make.