@@sage5296 yes but not what the associative and commutative laws are. also I feel most people forgot the names of the laws not that they don't know them lol
I thought this would be one of those videos where they trick you, but turns out you were just proving someone wrong. I really like the way you speak english. I dont understand why people spread hate!
98% on "matura" is really good :D. Here in the Czech Republic, the math exam ("maturita") isn't quite as hard, but I still had more than one mistake :D
the reason why 5x0 = 0 is because if take a function that multiplies 5 by x, for x > 0 the closer the x gets to 0, the smaller the final result gets so it just makes sense to include to make it continuous, you can think of it more as a definition of multiplication rather than something that exists in the real world. the reason why you cant divide by zero however is because the closer x gets to zero, the larger the number gets and it goes to infinity. TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!
Yea, and infinity is not a number. Then why is zero a number? 0 is essentially the opposite of infinity, but for some reason we treat one of them as a number and the other as something that only exists in limits. And on top of that: -infinity is a thing. which would suggest that -0 would also need to exist. So -1 x 0 should not be the same thing as 1 x 0.
@@HeppeGaming for me it just makes sense to connect negative and positive numbers, because we both know that there exist larger numbers than 0 (positive reals) and smaller numbers than 0 (negative reals), so why not? nothing does exist in the real world (for example i have 5 apples but 0 oranges) and it wouldn’t make sense to not be able to say that. and since we can always find a larger number than any number we think off (just adding one to it) we can’t really define “the largest real number”. and even then when can define numbers by being larger than the largest real number (infinite ordinals) and then say that w+1 is larger than w. with 0 we can’t do that because we clearly see what’s larger and smaller than it. with the argument of saying that -0 should exist i’d argue it does, it’s just equal to 0. and coming back to the multiplication, without the number 0 any multiplication closer to 0 gets its result closer to 0 and as much it doesn’t make sense in the real world to multiply by nothing, we do know if such number that’s smaller than all positives and larger than all negatives would have its result defined to be equal to zero. so instead of just making it a limit we can define that number to be 0 sorry for making it this long lmao but that’s my explanation
@@darqed Nice comment I think of 0 as "no value" That's why 0=-0 since there's no value to lose nor value to gain 0 isn't positive or negative to begin with it's just means you have nathing of certain item or value and as you ve said for multiplaction doesn't add value it changes the value like a scale that's why when we come close to zero value shrinks but above value get bigger doesn't matter if it's positive or negative since one is for like gain and other for lose and division is the opposite of multiplication so you can't have zero in division most answers to that is either 'undefined' or 'infinity' that's it it's very logical the one thing that's actually weird is the imaginery numbers root-x
@@HeppeGaming -0 is a thing in limits though, which is the same area of math where infinity is also worked with so I don't see the contradiction. In all other cases where you wouldn't work with infinity as a number -infinity also wouldn't be considered, so there's really no reason to consider a -0 outside of a limit situation. I also disagree that 0 shouldn't be considered a number on the basis that it's similar to infinity; How I like to view it is "infinity" as a concept usually can't be a solution to a standard math problem, however 0 very easily could be a solution to a number of standard math problems. I would argue something closer to a "opposite" to infinity would be an infinitely small number that approaches, but never equals zero. This is consistent with how limits are handled, as '0' in a limit usually represents this hypothetical number, not the function's actual value at 0. 0 also works well with addition, subtraction, and exponentiation without creating contradictions, while infinity can't be used meaningfully in any of those operations; 0 only really starts acting up when you multiply or divide with it.
I think what he was saying (i did not read his paper) was that a * b is the same as adding a to itself b times, which would mean a*b = a + a * b, and that mistake, plus unknowable substances, led him to his conclusion
Now let's talk about the symbols and what it means,the aswaski is a mathic symbol, unfortunately, there's no symbol in this computeriz cell phone to express the symbol.
Terrence Howard is either a moron or an expert troll, and I'm leaning towards the former. As for the tangent on zero, this is a subject that I've thought of a lot since college, I even gave a presentation on it for a class. I think it's a lot easier to think of zero less as a number and more as a concept, same with infinity (like you mentioned in a reply to a different comment here). It's probably just easier to treat it as a number when math is first being taught for simplicity's sake, since it doesn't tend to cause issues with basic algebra. As you start getting into higher level math courses, you have to make exceptions where zero can and can't be used, and its place as a 'number' starts to come into question.
Bro probably just asked AI to make up a proof for it 💀 Anyways, zero is a weird number, definitely. Zero does in fact have the same weirdness as infinity: they are reciprocals. 1/0 = infinity, 1/infinity = 0. But as other people pointed out, it's a lot easier in our heads to each zero than it is to reach infinity.
If you accept the acioms of a field: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics) Then you have to admit that x * 0 = 0 Tell me what axioms you dont agree with!
By rotating the x to make it a +.
EXACTLY
Polish man trying to find more excuses to hate on Zero.
These aren't excuses, these are good reasons
@@HeppeGaming true
1:45 "(a) is to be added to itself as many times as there are units in (b)."
bro proved himself wrong before the proof itself
He wrote that assuming people don't actually know what the associative and commutative laws are.
@@HeppeGaming lol
the funny thing is this means there's 1 copy of 1 which is 1, which already disproves his "proof"
that's basically just the definition of multiplication right?
@@sage5296 yes but not what the associative and commutative laws are.
also I feel most people forgot the names of the laws not that they don't know them lol
I thought this would be one of those videos where they trick you, but turns out you were just proving someone wrong. I really like the way you speak english. I dont understand why people spread hate!
I'm with you brother
98% on "matura" is really good :D. Here in the Czech Republic, the math exam ("maturita") isn't quite as hard, but I still had more than one mistake :D
yea, I haven't seen anyone with a better score than my 98%. So don't use that as a reference
the reason why 5x0 = 0 is because if take a function that multiplies 5 by x, for x > 0 the closer the x gets to 0, the smaller the final result gets so it just makes sense to include to make it continuous, you can think of it more as a definition of multiplication rather than something that exists in the real world. the reason why you cant divide by zero however is because the closer x gets to zero, the larger the number gets and it goes to infinity. TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!
Yea, and infinity is not a number. Then why is zero a number? 0 is essentially the opposite of infinity, but for some reason we treat one of them as a number and the other as something that only exists in limits.
And on top of that: -infinity is a thing. which would suggest that -0 would also need to exist. So -1 x 0 should not be the same thing as 1 x 0.
@@HeppeGaming for me it just makes sense to connect negative and positive numbers, because we both know that there exist larger numbers than 0 (positive reals) and smaller numbers than 0 (negative reals), so why not? nothing does exist in the real world (for example i have 5 apples but 0 oranges) and it wouldn’t make sense to not be able to say that. and since we can always find a larger number than any number we think off (just adding one to it) we can’t really define “the largest real number”. and even then when can define numbers by being larger than the largest real number (infinite ordinals) and then say that w+1 is larger than w. with 0 we can’t do that because we clearly see what’s larger and smaller than it. with the argument of saying that -0 should exist i’d argue it does, it’s just equal to 0. and coming back to the multiplication, without the number 0 any multiplication closer to 0 gets its result closer to 0 and as much it doesn’t make sense in the real world to multiply by nothing, we do know if such number that’s smaller than all positives and larger than all negatives would have its result defined to be equal to zero. so instead of just making it a limit we can define that number to be 0
sorry for making it this long lmao but that’s my explanation
@@darqed
Nice comment
I think of 0 as "no value"
That's why 0=-0 since there's no value to lose nor value to gain 0 isn't positive or negative to begin with it's just means you have nathing of certain item or value and as you ve said for multiplaction doesn't add value it changes the value like a scale that's why when we come close to zero value shrinks but above value get bigger doesn't matter if it's positive or negative since one is for like gain and other for lose and division is the opposite of multiplication so you can't have zero in division most answers to that is either 'undefined' or 'infinity' that's it it's very logical the one thing that's actually weird is the imaginery numbers root-x
@@HeppeGaming zero is not a number but also 1-1 so it is an actual achieavable value unlike infinity that is a concept
@@HeppeGaming -0 is a thing in limits though, which is the same area of math where infinity is also worked with so I don't see the contradiction. In all other cases where you wouldn't work with infinity as a number -infinity also wouldn't be considered, so there's really no reason to consider a -0 outside of a limit situation. I also disagree that 0 shouldn't be considered a number on the basis that it's similar to infinity; How I like to view it is "infinity" as a concept usually can't be a solution to a standard math problem, however 0 very easily could be a solution to a number of standard math problems. I would argue something closer to a "opposite" to infinity would be an infinitely small number that approaches, but never equals zero. This is consistent with how limits are handled, as '0' in a limit usually represents this hypothetical number, not the function's actual value at 0. 0 also works well with addition, subtraction, and exponentiation without creating contradictions, while infinity can't be used meaningfully in any of those operations; 0 only really starts acting up when you multiply or divide with it.
I think what he was saying (i did not read his paper) was that a * b is the same as adding a to itself b times, which would mean a*b = a + a * b, and that mistake, plus unknowable substances, led him to his conclusion
Can you make a video about the IEEE 754 standard for floating point numbers??
maybe in two weeks, because I'm going on vacations now
Both
It's so strange watching some random man debunking a weird statment while doing Minecraft parkour, good video btw
That's a good description of my channel. I know you will like more of my videos
Now let's talk about the symbols and what it means,the aswaski is a mathic symbol, unfortunately, there's no symbol in this computeriz cell phone to express the symbol.
Stop playing,1×1=2
hey josh I'm missing you're streams😭😭
your*
@@HeppeGaming i need grammer tests i guess🙃
@@Islam-66778 when you get good at grammar he might start streaming again, at least that’s what I understand from what he said
im in love with this channel
1*1=2 in the zero ring
odkąd widziałem pierwszy film wiedziałem że jesteś Polakiem po akcencie. Dzięki za potwierdzenie brachu
I hate to be the barra of bad news
I think terry was neither drunk nor high. Just dumb. Really, really dumb
the sky people are nice people
Man i learned more from you than my math teacher
Well, at least I learned more from my math teacher than I did from this proof...
I do agree that 2+2=5, though.
Thank you, that means a lot
Well if you have a person you love or care about,base on the mathic of 1*1=1 means that you or your love is going to disappear 😢😮
Terrence Howard is either a moron or an expert troll, and I'm leaning towards the former.
As for the tangent on zero, this is a subject that I've thought of a lot since college, I even gave a presentation on it for a class. I think it's a lot easier to think of zero less as a number and more as a concept, same with infinity (like you mentioned in a reply to a different comment here). It's probably just easier to treat it as a number when math is first being taught for simplicity's sake, since it doesn't tend to cause issues with basic algebra. As you start getting into higher level math courses, you have to make exceptions where zero can and can't be used, and its place as a 'number' starts to come into question.
1*1=2, why because the symbol is a multiplayer
YES YES AMAZING VIDEO VERY INTERESTING I LIKE
6:00 0/0 = 69 (just because)
love your videos
Bro probably just asked AI to make up a proof for it 💀
Anyways, zero is a weird number, definitely. Zero does in fact have the same weirdness as infinity: they are reciprocals. 1/0 = infinity, 1/infinity = 0. But as other people pointed out, it's a lot easier in our heads to each zero than it is to reach infinity.
1x1 DOES EQUAL 2 AND YOU ARE JUST TOO RACIST TO UNDERSTAND
Well, I can't argue with facts
If you accept the acioms of a field: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)
Then you have to admit that x * 0 = 0
Tell me what axioms you dont agree with!