@malus1426 A female is somebody who expresses themselves in feminine ways. Gender isn't a biological construct and there are instances where a female can look like a male if you have ever seen a trans person transition. So I don't get your point.
If 1x1 = 2, then I wouldn't be able to type this sentence on a computer terminal; let alone even experience what a computer would be in the first place!
I can say 2x2=2 by denouncing both numbers as existent and count too it by a factor of 1,real multiplication requires the existence of something to multiple it by another something so 1x1=2 is actually correct.
@@zayzillions7319 Hopeless! You can define your system to be whatever you want it to be, to the consequence of your 'logic', but the basic tenants of mathematics and operator theory predefine multiplication specifically.
As a mathematician, I cringe at the mere stupidity and childish presentation of an argument that is based on unfounded structure, riddled with suppositions that are completely false! Clearly, Terrence Howard could not even pass a basic middle school algebra class with his inept understanding of the rules of arithmetic. Why is anyone giving this 'artist' the time of day? This all sounds like part of an act for a new exhibit that he's working on in Hollyweird.
I only have one more video planned late in July and that is with a physicist who can tell us where Howard is mentioning someting real, where he's almost right and where he's saying something really off the mark. But there are actual mathematicians who are breaking down all of his math on RUclips, and they probably do a better job than I would since their background actually is math, not its well-known rebellious child field.
@@MadComputerScientist1 Based on Howard's 'logic', {1,2,3,...}x{1}={2,3,4,5,....} Insanity. Furthermore, using his made-up rule, {0}x{0} = 2, since there would be two zeroes in his world. It's insane that people are giving him the time of day to take his childish science fiction seriously, all because they enjoy his acting skills and celebrity status. Clearly, the concept of an operator is too complex for him to comprehend. I would hate for him to try division!
I really wasn't expecting a conspiracy theory at the end of this "proof". Let's now prove that the Earth is flat because it "looks flat". I was expecting some arcane piece of mathematical gymnastics that might be considered "clever", this was not. Thank you for teaching me a little math.
@@MadComputerScientist1 Is he really good? I can't think of anything he's been that good in. And he's kinda fading into obscurity, he barely gets roles anymore. I never saw Empire. Hustle & Flo was alright. I've heard he'd difficult to work with especially when he keeps embarrassing himself publicly: at Oxford, in Uganda, with his awful book, that weird wig interview, and now his latest on the interview tour: Joe Rogan. What was he nominated for? Was it Crash? I never saw that film. I'm just saying.... like, if I were a casting director, I don't think I'd ever band on my desk and say "Get me Terrence Howard!!" just saying.... unless maybe I needed like a supervillain. I don't really like super-hero movies, so I never saw Iron Man. Was he the villain?
While it's possible I'm thinking of Don Cheedle, who played Colonel Rhodes in Iron Man 2 and 3, he was good in the original Iron Man, which would be the only place I've seen him. Neither Empire nor the other movies he is in interest me. If I were looking for someone to convincing play someone with schizoprhenia, bipoloar schizoaffective or bipolar disorder with manic hallucinations, I would consider Howard seriously for that role. Although I am not qualified to diagnose mental illness, he does remind me me of one of my relatives who suffered from bipolar schizoaffective disorder. His Joe Rogan Experience appearance and the Professor Dave Explains video on him make me think he might benefit from an antipsychotic drug. I am thoroughly enjoying his book on Terryology though. I am, coincidentally, watching your second video on his Oxford appearance right now
@@MadComputerScientist1 yeah, Professor Dave Explains did a tremendous video! I've been criticizing him for years now!, for his "math" & pseudoscientific garbage. Making videos here and there, and after Rogan, they started getting more attention. I have much interest in math & computer science; I'll check out your channel some more!
I’m glad I saw this. I saw his Oxford lecture and when he mentions the commutative and associate properties he kind of mumbles through them and I thought it sounded wrong, but I couldn’t hear it clearly enough to be sure. And yeah, that sounds like what he said and no, that ain’t what those properties are.
I watched that JRE episode, it was very very uncomfortable to see an obviously mentally unwell person go so completely unchallenged, it was like listening to the result of throwing science books into a shredder and using text to speech on the output. I hope he gets treated and makes a full recovery, I really do.
I'll never understand this stupidity. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what multiplication is. He defined it as an increase, which is not necessarily true. One group of one item is... Wait for it.... ONE ITEM! It's a set, Terry, that's it. A single set of one item.
I've been arguing with people on Reddit on this topic and they all act like there is a deeper meaning to his ideas and that he is just not good at demonstrating them while speaking. You can't persuade them
Welcome to my channel! Arguing on the Internet can be fun, but also frustrating. But if there's a deeper meaning to what Terrence Howard is trying to say other than "I need to take antipsychotic medications." I would like someone to state it.
'IF' we are talking discrete integer math, then 1x1never equals 2 - However, if we are addressing analog/continuous numbers, then it come down to probability as to what 1x1 'could' equal - Note the 1 here is only provided to one significant digit - In reality, 1 could be anywhere between 0.51 and 1.49 ( to 3 significant digits) - All of which round to 1 (to one significant digit) - Therefore, 1x1 could be anywhere between 0.26 (0.51x0.51) and 2.22 (1.49x1.49) - Of which '2' is clearly in this range - Conclusion, 1x1 'could' be 2 (to one significant digit) probablistically, but we don't know precisely, based on what is given.
Welcome to my channel! Something tells me that Howard is unlikely to know what discrete integers are, and there's a high probability he is definitely not ready for probabilistic math.
@@Crash-yp7ll Finally. A voice of reason. I posted that since 1 is ALWAYS a natural log then 1x1=1+1=2. Howard is correct but not because of anything he posted as proof. The sad part is that none of the mathematicians picked up on this. That's the truly frightening part of this. Not Howard's intellect.
1 is not a natural log in the way you mean, if you take the log of 1 of any valid base, you get 0. lg 1 = 0, (lg here is an abbreviation for log base 2. It's commonly used in computer science.) ln 1 = 0 log 1 = 0 log_base3 1 = 0 log_base4 1 = 0 Do you see a pattern here? Nor does this use of logarithms prove that 1 x 1 = 2 Using the laws of logarithms to do this problem, we could do, providing we ignore exceptions that are usually specified. ln 1 + ln 1 = ln 2. the next step gives us 0 + 0 is approximately equal to 0.6931471806. So, by your own logic, we have just proved that 1 * 1 = 2. Do you note how neither statement is correct when dealing with discrete integers? If we use the system outlined by the original poster... Even using the step above for the 0s, where 0 can be between 0.000...1* and 0.49, we can get a range of values of -.245 and .2401 and from the bove aquestion. 0.000...1* < .2401 < 2. This still doesn't make Howard's math work. *You can't take the logarithm of 0 or the logarithm of a negative number. Now, if you can explain what you mean without resorting to personal attacks I am open. There's a lot of specialized math a programmer doesn't need to know in most circumstances.
@@MadComputerScientist1 1. I never personally attacked you. I said you were wrong and you are still wrong. 2. I explained it to simply and concisely. Unfortunately you are confusing what a natural log is and the ln(x). 3. A natural log, ln, is ANY power e is raised to. It is an exponent of e. It is a logarithm of e. 4. ln(x) asks to what power must I take e in order to obtain the value x? 5. e can and must ALWAYS be expressed as e^1. Therefore 1 is ALWAYS a natural log of e. 6. ln(e)=1 Is the desired and correct result. This says to what power must I take e in order to obtain a result of e. 7. I'm sorry but its quite clear you do not have an understanding of natural logs. If you do not understand that the sum of two natural logs is the same (equivalent to) as the product of those two natural logs then we are just wasting each others time.
The ternary operator killed me :D According to Terrence 10/5 = 2 8/4 = 2 6/3 = 2 4/2 = 2 2/1 = 1 That's because he actually had in his book the example 4/2 and the "inverse" of that to be 2*2 = 4 he compared that to 2/1 and just "stated" that the inverse should be 1*1 = 2 He calls "our" system is "inconsistent". However if you look at the series I just posted, the only inconsistency I can see is in HIS calculation. In the normal world, all those fractions have the same value and that is 2.
This is very easy to prove just take the addition sign and rotate 45 degrees which is the fundamental angular basis of the wombs exit … ahh now he’s got me
But if you rotate it another 45 degrees, we get the symbol of the Cross, which goes on top of Tombstones, and shows us somehow that the Roman Catholic church is wrong, we get a symbol associated with death and we now get substraction so I guess we now have a proof that 1*1 = 0. I am worried about how easy coming up with that above nonsencial paragraph was for me. But Terrence, if you ever want me to prove to y ou programitcally that 1+1=3, I can do that. I promise floating point shaningans galore though.
well althought we all know what you mean by this technically it doesnt work the way you'd like it to work for your financial advantage, from a more rigurous perspective what youre doing is laying 1 dollar on a table 1 time which although wrong according to terrence howard leads to having 1x1 = 2 dollars on the table, but here is the thing, the moment you take 1 dollar 1 time from the table you have, by the same wrong principle grabbed 1x1 = 2 dollars which leads to there being no more for you to grab, so no infinite money glitch.
He never attended USC, and USC does not award degrees in chemical engineering. He gave a commencement speech at USC, for which he was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Human Letters. Other distinguished recipients of this honor include Kermit the Frog. On the first page of his proof, the lines that come between "Then, let's try..." and "Associative and Commutative Law's" assume the conclusion to prove the conclusion. Ipso facto this "proof" and all conclusions based on it are invalid.
No, if I'm following Terence Howard's redefinition of multiplication correctly, using his rules, 8 * 8 = 72. Why 72? Howard seems to think multplication is a * b = c + b, where c = a * b. This is why 1 * 1 = 1 *1 + 1 in Howard's "logic." (I think there may be one solution to the a * b = c +b equation and it'ss the one where a, b, and c are all equal to 0. I didn't get into this bit because there were a lot of other things wrong and his definition of multiplication was giving me a headache. The funny thing is that Howard might have accidentally proposed something mathematicians will play around with while laughing at him, or at least they would if he could develop a coherent set of rules. So far, he hasn't managed to do that. It still likely wouldn't have any practical application, but mathematicians tend to love math games of this type.
@@MadComputerScientist1 Do you think is trying to expand on the political concept of equity? He uses some terminology associated with cultural marxism for justification of dislocating the perceived oppressing population from property to the perceived repressed population?
Personally I think he's misusing terms or using vernactular, but the gist I'm getting is he thinks a balanced equation in math is the same thing as a balanced equation of chemistry, where the number of atoms on the left side equal the number of atoms on the right side.
I think Mr Howard is going off a bad definition; multiplication is the number of times you add a number to itself. Fortunately most who quote this ignore their own instructions since it generates nonsense like 1+1=2.
To me, it’s a matter of language. The definition of “multiplication” is just a little off maybe. That being said, it doesn’t matter, because most intelligent people know what is meant when someone writes out 1x1
Welcome to my channel! Oingo Boingo's Weird Science theme was fun. It's at least as relevant to proving 1 x 1 = 2 as much as invoking the Anunaki Sky people teaching us math incorrectly is.
@@MadComputerScientist1 Hi thanks for the warm welcome. There's actually a lot to what I'm showing. I never started out to show this it comes out of my main work on prime numbers. You will need to look at previous and upcoming shorts to get a sense of it all if you want. :)
And what, in words, are you trying to show? I see two videos that are nothing more than pieces of paper with music added in the background That doesn't really help and the short format was a poor choice if you're trying to explain something in depth.
@@MadComputerScientist1Maybe start on a video not short I've done on how to do enhanced trial division so you can actually see I can do things. I do shorts mainly for the Facebook maths groups im in where it gets explained more with a lot of fellow maths lovers.
So after looking it up, Trial division is a prime factorization algorithm of NP run-time complexity. (No one knows yet if it is possible to reduce prime factorization to polynomial time. If it does turn out to be impossible, this would solve the P vs NP problem by showing that P is a proper subset of NP.) Assuming Wikipedia is correct, it's a trial and error method. You start with a number m and divide it by a prime number n if n | m, that number is a factor. Then you move onto the next prime number, and repeat the process as long as the prime numbers you are using are less than or equal to the number you are testing.. To start this algorithm with the number 2, you start with 2 since 1 is not a prime number. 2/2, which of course equals 1, and you get the factors 1 and 2. I'd like to see an actual video or explanation detailing your work and how you think an algorithm proves Terrence Howard correct. There are two possibilities here. 1.) There's some convention I don't know about that you're using. 2.) You've forgotten that one is not a prime number. Either way, not to sound like a math teacher, but I'd like to see your work or at least some R or Python code (the languages math majors are most likely to know), that I can type out and run to see how you came about this.
Disappointing. I’d heard this was going round but gave up after the first page. Think he means distributive rather than associative and commutative. Confusing multiplication over addition with addition over multiplication. Thought he was going to try and come up with an isomorphism between integers and a field where 1 wasn’t the identity but no luck. Wonder what he thinks of the star map. Maybe he has some ideas but starts off so badly I’m not going any further.
Welcome to my channel! I understand giving up. I gave up here after he says the Ancient Egyptians were given incorrect math and geometry by the Anunaki Sky people. Personally, I was amused to find this in a math proof and think we need more of this, but I suspect actual mathematicians do not share my desire to see such whimsical things because it's not the Dad humor they seem to prefer.
Look. I do NOT support Howard's work. I haven't read it so I can't can't support or deny it. But I'm tired of so-called "authorities" being smug, innumerate, and flat out wrong. Since 1is a natural log then 1x1=2. There isn't a COMPETENT mathematician on the planet who would refute this.
1 is not a natural log. The natural logarithm lnx is the logarithm having base e, where e=2.718281828.... according to Wolfram Alpha. I'm open to being wrong, but I think you mean something other than the natural log, which is always base e.
So, you don't know what a natural log is, despite me giving you the definition. But as I said in one of the videos, it's okay to be wrong. It's how we learn. It's just that in this case, you're working off an incorrect definition, much the same way Howard is working off of an incorrect definition of multiplcaiton.
Now I see. Your phrasing is off because you do not understand that a logarithm is a function. What you mean to say is, "1 is the natural log of e." A logarithm is a mathematical function. Saying 1 is a natural log is the incorrect way of saying this. But 1 is also the log_base2 of 2, log_base3 3, log_base 4 of 4.... because any non-zero real number raised to the first power is that number. As I've shown, your further attempt to misapply the laws of logarithms doesn't work. Here's an example that does work, and again, you forget to take the natural logs of these numbers, or indeed a log of any base. 1 x 1 = 1 ln 1 + ln 1 = ln 1 0 + 0 = 0. Check. But I highly recommend you increase your understanding. I understand it's easy to use imprecise language when it comes to math, but this all comes down to you misunderstanding the difference between what a logarithm is and its base is. And the context here -- which is obvious from reading "1 x1 = 2" is that Terrence Howard is saying basic arithmetic is wrong. He's not talking about advanced forms of math where 1 x 1 = 2 for sufficiently large values of 1. But there's nothing more to say, and you will need to work things out on your own if you don't believe me. Try the examples I gave you on desmos.com/scientific or the Geogebra calculator.
@@MadComputerScientist1 Oh I just discovered that you explained this all to this person here. I was engaging with this person in the replies of another comment and I think whoever this person is does have a fundamental misunderstanding of logarithms and also the rule that the log of the product of two numbers is equivalent to the addition of the logs of those two numbers. They also claimed that e^a * e^b = e^a + e^b and used that incorrect claim to conclude that a + b = ab. Very confusing.
Can’t see you speak, you’re expecting me to read the page as you talk? You’re not calling out anything on the page you’re not using captions so it’s very hard to follow.
Everything on RUclips is done to attract an audience. So, yes, he put this foward. It had become popular because of a star on News Radio who now has a podcast, and the second reason would be obvious if you'd ever taken a college level math class beyond calculus. You will look at bad proofs and try to spot the errors. This there was educational value in.
I guess the way to simplify all this would be to recognize that : the number 1 can't be multiplying itself and give itself again. 1x1 does not exist in this universe we live in.
Let's say we have 25 pennies spread out amongst 5 bowls. We have 5 pennies in each bowl. Here's quick primer for you for what multiplication represents so you will never be confused again. So, we have 5 bowls with 5 pennies, we have 5 pennies * 5 groups of pennnies. We have 25 penneis, or .05 * 5 = .25 (Note that we are not multiplying pennies together. A penny squared is not a sensible measurement.) So, we remove one of the bowls. We have 5 pennies in 4 bowls, or 5 pennies * 4 groups of pennies, which is 20 pennies, which is represented by .05 * 4 = .20 Now, 3 bowls with 5 pennies, we have .05 * 3 = .15 Then 2 bowls with 5 pennies .05 * 2 = .10 And finally .05 * 1 = .05. Math isn't broken simply because Terrence Howard doesn't understand basic axioms. You're also assuming math has to model real world applications. It doesn't. Explaining things this way is a lot easier than saying, that Terrence Howard didn't define the term multiplication as it is used in mathematics correctly, and doesn't understand the Identity Property of Multiplication is a fundamental axiom. Not to mention his mathematical models are not consistent. I encourage you to learn math better than Mr. Howard did, and I hope Mr. Howard will come around to realizing why nothing he said was correct. Every single one of us has been at the overconfidence peak of the Dunning-Kruger effect graph at some point in our lives.
The fact that something so obvious is getting so much oxygen is a demonstration of society failing
@malus1426 A female is somebody who expresses themselves in feminine ways. Gender isn't a biological construct and there are instances where a female can look like a male if you have ever seen a trans person transition. So I don't get your point.
Mr Howard seems to be dabbling in glass pipe mathematics
If 1x1 = 2, then I wouldn't be able to type this sentence on a computer terminal; let alone even experience what a computer would be in the first place!
I can say 2x2=2 by denouncing both numbers as existent and count too it by a factor of 1,real multiplication requires the existence of something to multiple it by another something so 1x1=2 is actually correct.
No, no, no, you’re completely wrong. 1x1=1 has been holding the entire world back. 😂
@@zayzillions7319 Hopeless! You can define your system to be whatever you want it to be, to the consequence of your 'logic', but the basic tenants of mathematics and operator theory predefine multiplication specifically.
As a mathematician, I cringe at the mere stupidity and childish presentation of an argument that is based on unfounded structure, riddled with suppositions that are completely false! Clearly, Terrence Howard could not even pass a basic middle school algebra class with his inept understanding of the rules of arithmetic. Why is anyone giving this 'artist' the time of day? This all sounds like part of an act for a new exhibit that he's working on in Hollyweird.
I only have one more video planned late in July and that is with a physicist who can tell us where Howard is mentioning someting real, where he's almost right and where he's saying something really off the mark.
But there are actual mathematicians who are breaking down all of his math on RUclips, and they probably do a better job than I would since their background actually is math, not its well-known rebellious child field.
@@MadComputerScientist1 Based on Howard's 'logic', {1,2,3,...}x{1}={2,3,4,5,....}
Insanity. Furthermore, using his made-up rule, {0}x{0} = 2, since there would be two zeroes in his world. It's insane that people are giving him the time of day to take his childish science fiction seriously, all because they enjoy his acting skills and celebrity status. Clearly, the concept of an operator is too complex for him to comprehend. I would hate for him to try division!
@@altruisticdiscovery It must be a... a field with one element? (lol, I'm rewatching PeakMath from the beginning now that he posted E9)
What's next, someone will claim the earth is round?
I really wasn't expecting a conspiracy theory at the end of this "proof". Let's now prove that the Earth is flat because it "looks flat". I was expecting some arcane piece of mathematical gymnastics that might be considered "clever", this was not. Thank you for teaching me a little math.
You should check out all four pages of his proof. You can find it on Twitter. He is a good actor, though.
@@MadComputerScientist1 Is he really good? I can't think of anything he's been that good in. And he's kinda fading into obscurity, he barely gets roles anymore. I never saw Empire. Hustle & Flo was alright. I've heard he'd difficult to work with especially when he keeps embarrassing himself publicly: at Oxford, in Uganda, with his awful book, that weird wig interview, and now his latest on the interview tour: Joe Rogan.
What was he nominated for? Was it Crash? I never saw that film. I'm just saying.... like, if I were a casting director, I don't think I'd ever band on my desk and say "Get me Terrence Howard!!" just saying.... unless maybe I needed like a supervillain. I don't really like super-hero movies, so I never saw Iron Man. Was he the villain?
While it's possible I'm thinking of Don Cheedle, who played Colonel Rhodes in Iron Man 2 and 3, he was good in the original Iron Man, which would be the only place I've seen him. Neither Empire nor the other movies he is in interest me.
If I were looking for someone to convincing play someone with schizoprhenia, bipoloar schizoaffective or bipolar disorder with manic hallucinations, I would consider Howard seriously for that role. Although I am not qualified to diagnose mental illness, he does remind me me of one of my relatives who suffered from bipolar schizoaffective disorder. His Joe Rogan Experience appearance and the Professor Dave Explains video on him make me think he might benefit from an antipsychotic drug.
I am thoroughly enjoying his book on Terryology though.
I am, coincidentally, watching your second video on his Oxford appearance right now
@@MadComputerScientist1 yeah, Professor Dave Explains did a tremendous video! I've been criticizing him for years now!, for his "math" & pseudoscientific garbage. Making videos here and there, and after Rogan, they started getting more attention. I have much interest in math & computer science; I'll check out your channel some more!
I’m glad I saw this. I saw his Oxford lecture and when he mentions the commutative and associate properties he kind of mumbles through them and I thought it sounded wrong, but I couldn’t hear it clearly enough to be sure. And yeah, that sounds like what he said and no, that ain’t what those properties are.
Welcome to my channel!
Yes, I had to double check those myself and make sure what I remembered was correct.
I watched that JRE episode, it was very very uncomfortable to see an obviously mentally unwell person go so completely unchallenged, it was like listening to the result of throwing science books into a shredder and using text to speech on the output. I hope he gets treated and makes a full recovery, I really do.
What needs to be said here other than: if you eat 1 pizza 1 times, how many pizzas did you eat?
1 only once, is 1 because it has been done ONCE.
I'll never understand this stupidity. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what multiplication is. He defined it as an increase, which is not necessarily true.
One group of one item is... Wait for it.... ONE ITEM!
It's a set, Terry, that's it. A single set of one item.
I've been arguing with people on Reddit on this topic and they all act like there is a deeper meaning to his ideas and that he is just not good at demonstrating them while speaking. You can't persuade them
Welcome to my channel!
Arguing on the Internet can be fun, but also frustrating. But if there's a deeper meaning to what Terrence Howard is trying to say other than "I need to take antipsychotic medications." I would like someone to state it.
'IF' we are talking discrete integer math, then 1x1never equals 2 - However, if we are addressing analog/continuous numbers, then it come down to probability as to what 1x1 'could' equal - Note the 1 here is only provided to one significant digit - In reality, 1 could be anywhere between 0.51 and 1.49 ( to 3 significant digits) - All of which round to 1 (to one significant digit) - Therefore, 1x1 could be anywhere between 0.26 (0.51x0.51) and 2.22 (1.49x1.49) - Of which '2' is clearly in this range - Conclusion, 1x1 'could' be 2 (to one significant digit) probablistically, but we don't know precisely, based on what is given.
Welcome to my channel!
Something tells me that Howard is unlikely to know what discrete integers are, and there's a high probability he is definitely not ready for probabilistic math.
@MadComputerScientist1 - Very true - Hopefully, some in the wider audience see that he may have been right, but for the wrong reasons.
@@Crash-yp7ll Finally. A voice of reason. I posted that since 1 is ALWAYS a natural log then 1x1=1+1=2. Howard is correct but not because of anything he posted as proof. The sad part is that none of the mathematicians picked up on this. That's the truly frightening part of this. Not Howard's intellect.
1 is not a natural log in the way you mean, if you take the log of 1 of any valid base, you get 0.
lg 1 = 0, (lg here is an abbreviation for log base 2. It's commonly used in computer science.)
ln 1 = 0
log 1 = 0
log_base3 1 = 0
log_base4 1 = 0
Do you see a pattern here?
Nor does this use of logarithms prove that 1 x 1 = 2
Using the laws of logarithms to do this problem, we could do, providing we ignore exceptions that are usually specified.
ln 1 + ln 1 = ln 2.
the next step gives us
0 + 0 is approximately equal to 0.6931471806.
So, by your own logic, we have just proved that 1 * 1 = 2.
Do you note how neither statement is correct when dealing with discrete integers?
If we use the system outlined by the original poster...
Even using the step above for the 0s, where 0 can be between 0.000...1* and 0.49, we can get a range of values of -.245 and .2401 and from the bove aquestion.
0.000...1* < .2401 < 2. This still doesn't make Howard's math work.
*You can't take the logarithm of 0 or the logarithm of a negative number.
Now, if you can explain what you mean without resorting to personal attacks I am open. There's a lot of specialized math a programmer doesn't need to know in most circumstances.
@@MadComputerScientist1
1. I never personally attacked you. I said you were wrong and you are still wrong.
2. I explained it to simply and concisely. Unfortunately you are confusing what a natural log is and the ln(x).
3. A natural log, ln, is ANY power e is raised to. It is an exponent of e. It is a logarithm of e.
4. ln(x) asks to what power must I take e in order to obtain the value x?
5. e can and must ALWAYS be expressed as e^1. Therefore 1 is ALWAYS a natural log of e.
6. ln(e)=1 Is the desired and correct result. This says to what power must I take e in order to obtain a result of e.
7. I'm sorry but its quite clear you do not have an understanding of natural logs. If you do not understand that the sum of two natural logs is the same (equivalent to) as the product of those two natural logs then we are just wasting each others time.
He is on something for sure
The ternary operator killed me :D
According to Terrence
10/5 = 2
8/4 = 2
6/3 = 2
4/2 = 2
2/1 = 1
That's because he actually had in his book the example
4/2 and the "inverse" of that to be 2*2 = 4 he compared that to
2/1 and just "stated" that the inverse should be 1*1 = 2
He calls "our" system is "inconsistent". However if you look at the series I just posted, the only inconsistency I can see is in HIS calculation. In the normal world, all those fractions have the same value and that is 2.
This is very easy to prove just take the addition sign and rotate 45 degrees which is the fundamental angular basis of the wombs exit … ahh now he’s got me
But if you rotate it another 45 degrees, we get the symbol of the Cross, which goes on top of Tombstones, and shows us somehow that the Roman Catholic church is wrong, we get a symbol associated with death and we now get substraction so I guess we now have a proof that 1*1 = 0.
I am worried about how easy coming up with that above nonsencial paragraph was for me.
But Terrence, if you ever want me to prove to y ou programitcally that 1+1=3, I can do that. I promise floating point shaningans galore though.
1 x 1 = 2 divide both sides by 1.
1 = 2
Terry wrote "Someone forgot to follow the basic rules of multiplication"
Yes, and that someone is Terrence Howard.
This almost seems like he was pinching his dealers stash, made up this bit in defense, and had to commit to it.
Lay a Dollar on the table, grab 2, repeat.
well althought we all know what you mean by this technically it doesnt work the way you'd like it to work for your financial advantage, from a more rigurous perspective what youre doing is laying 1 dollar on a table 1 time which although wrong according to terrence howard leads to having 1x1 = 2 dollars on the table, but here is the thing, the moment you take 1 dollar 1 time from the table you have, by the same wrong principle grabbed 1x1 = 2 dollars which leads to there being no more for you to grab, so no infinite money glitch.
I like you the way you talk and that your voice sounds like a supervillain.
Welcome to my channel!
What can I say to that except Mwuhahaha!
terrance howard the actor from iron man?
He played Colonel Rhodes in the first movie. Don Cheedle played Rhodes in Iron Man 2 and 3.
😔😔😔😔 His Brain has gone crazy!
He never attended USC, and USC does not award degrees in chemical engineering. He gave a commencement speech at USC, for which he was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Human Letters. Other distinguished recipients of this honor include Kermit the Frog.
On the first page of his proof, the lines that come between "Then, let's try..." and "Associative and Commutative Law's" assume the conclusion to prove the conclusion. Ipso facto this "proof" and all conclusions based on it are invalid.
"Terrence Howard's 1x1=2 Proof is Incorrect". Lol. Ya think?
So, what DOES 1*1 make?
Angry computer scientists and mathematicians. Also, a lot of views on RUclips.
8 x 8 = 2? There are two numbers on the left side? 2 + 2 = 5? Orwell is a failure.
No, if I'm following Terence Howard's redefinition of multiplication correctly, using his rules, 8 * 8 = 72.
Why 72? Howard seems to think multplication is
a * b = c + b, where c = a * b.
This is why 1 * 1 = 1 *1 + 1 in Howard's "logic."
(I think there may be one solution to the a * b = c +b equation and it'ss the one where a, b, and c are all equal to 0.
I didn't get into this bit because there were a lot of other things wrong and his definition of multiplication was giving me a headache.
The funny thing is that Howard might have accidentally proposed something mathematicians will play around with while laughing at him, or at least they would if he could develop a coherent set of rules. So far, he hasn't managed to do that. It still likely wouldn't have any practical application, but mathematicians tend to love math games of this type.
@@MadComputerScientist1 Do you think is trying to expand on the political concept of equity? He uses some terminology associated with cultural marxism for justification of dislocating the perceived oppressing population from property to the perceived repressed population?
Personally I think he's misusing terms or using vernactular, but the gist I'm getting is he thinks a balanced equation in math is the same thing as a balanced equation of chemistry, where the number of atoms on the left side equal the number of atoms on the right side.
I think Mr Howard is going off a bad definition; multiplication is the number of times you add a number to itself. Fortunately most who quote this ignore their own instructions since it generates nonsense like 1+1=2.
To me, it’s a matter of language. The definition of “multiplication” is just a little off maybe. That being said, it doesn’t matter, because most intelligent people know what is meant when someone writes out 1x1
1x1 means “One, one time”. I shudder to think of the people who will go down the 1x1=2 rabbit hole, thinking they’re onto something.
1x1=2 is confirmed on my channel
Welcome to my channel!
Oingo Boingo's Weird Science theme was fun. It's at least as relevant to proving 1 x 1 = 2 as much as invoking the Anunaki Sky people teaching us math incorrectly is.
@@MadComputerScientist1 Hi thanks for the warm welcome. There's actually a lot to what I'm showing. I never started out to show this it comes out of my main work on prime numbers. You will need to look at previous and upcoming shorts to get a sense of it all if you want. :)
And what, in words, are you trying to show? I see two videos that are nothing more than pieces of paper with music added in the background That doesn't really help and the short format was a poor choice if you're trying to explain something in depth.
@@MadComputerScientist1Maybe start on a video not short I've done on how to do enhanced trial division so you can actually see I can do things. I do shorts mainly for the Facebook maths groups im in where it gets explained more with a lot of fellow maths lovers.
So after looking it up, Trial division is a prime factorization algorithm of NP run-time complexity. (No one knows yet if it is possible to reduce prime factorization to polynomial time. If it does turn out to be impossible, this would solve the P vs NP problem by showing that P is a proper subset of NP.) Assuming Wikipedia is correct, it's a trial and error method. You start with a number m and divide it by a prime number n if n | m, that number is a factor. Then you move onto the next prime number, and repeat the process as long as the prime numbers you are using are less than or equal to the number you are testing..
To start this algorithm with the number 2, you start with 2 since 1 is not a prime number. 2/2, which of course equals 1, and you get the factors 1 and 2.
I'd like to see an actual video or explanation detailing your work and how you think an algorithm proves Terrence Howard correct. There are two possibilities here.
1.) There's some convention I don't know about that you're using.
2.) You've forgotten that one is not a prime number.
Either way, not to sound like a math teacher, but I'd like to see your work or at least some R or Python code (the languages math majors are most likely to know), that I can type out and run to see how you came about this.
Im going to be rich exchanging 1x1 dollars for 1 dollar at the bank a million times.🤑
This was great!
Disappointing. I’d heard this was going round but gave up after the first page.
Think he means distributive rather than associative and commutative. Confusing multiplication over addition with addition over multiplication.
Thought he was going to try and come up with an isomorphism between integers and a field where 1 wasn’t the identity but no luck.
Wonder what he thinks of the star map.
Maybe he has some ideas but starts off so badly I’m not going any further.
Welcome to my channel!
I understand giving up. I gave up here after he says the Ancient Egyptians were given incorrect math and geometry by the Anunaki Sky people. Personally, I was amused to find this in a math proof and think we need more of this, but I suspect actual mathematicians do not share my desire to see such whimsical things because it's not the Dad humor they seem to prefer.
Look. I do NOT support Howard's work. I haven't read it so I can't can't support or deny it. But I'm tired of so-called "authorities" being smug, innumerate, and flat out wrong. Since 1is a natural log then 1x1=2. There isn't a COMPETENT mathematician on the planet who would refute this.
1 is not a natural log.
The natural logarithm lnx is the logarithm having base e, where
e=2.718281828....
according to Wolfram Alpha.
I'm open to being wrong, but I think you mean something other than the natural log, which is always base e.
@@MadComputerScientist1 e^1=e.
1is ALWAYS a natural log.
e^1xe^1=e^2.
Thus By the rules of natural logs (1x1)=(1+1)=2.
You are wrong.
So, you don't know what a natural log is, despite me giving you the definition. But as I said in one of the videos, it's okay to be wrong. It's how we learn.
It's just that in this case, you're working off an incorrect definition, much the same way Howard is working off of an incorrect definition of multiplcaiton.
Now I see. Your phrasing is off because you do not understand that a logarithm is a function. What you mean to say is, "1 is the natural log of e." A logarithm is a mathematical function. Saying 1 is a natural log is the incorrect way of saying this. But 1 is also the log_base2 of 2, log_base3 3, log_base 4 of 4.... because any non-zero real number raised to the first power is that number.
As I've shown, your further attempt to misapply the laws of logarithms doesn't work.
Here's an example that does work, and again, you forget to take the natural logs of these numbers, or indeed a log of any base.
1 x 1 = 1
ln 1 + ln 1 = ln 1
0 + 0 = 0. Check.
But I highly recommend you increase your understanding. I understand it's easy to use imprecise language when it comes to math, but this all comes down to you misunderstanding the difference between what a logarithm is and its base is.
And the context here -- which is obvious from reading "1 x1 = 2" is that Terrence Howard is saying basic arithmetic is wrong. He's not talking about advanced forms of math where 1 x 1 = 2 for sufficiently large values of 1.
But there's nothing more to say, and you will need to work things out on your own if you don't believe me. Try the examples I gave you on desmos.com/scientific or the Geogebra calculator.
@@MadComputerScientist1 Oh I just discovered that you explained this all to this person here. I was engaging with this person in the replies of another comment and I think whoever this person is does have a fundamental misunderstanding of logarithms and also the rule that the log of the product of two numbers is equivalent to the addition of the logs of those two numbers. They also claimed that e^a * e^b = e^a + e^b and used that incorrect claim to conclude that a + b = ab. Very confusing.
Can’t see you speak, you’re expecting me to read the page as you talk? You’re not calling out anything on the page you’re not using captions so it’s very hard to follow.
Hit the 'CC' button. They are working. I have reasons for not showing my face.
Why would you devote a video to a lunatic's conjecture?
For clicks no doubt.
Everything on RUclips is done to attract an audience.
So, yes, he put this foward. It had become popular because of a star on News Radio who now has a podcast, and the second reason would be obvious if you'd ever taken a college level math class beyond calculus. You will look at bad proofs and try to spot the errors. This there was educational value in.
I guess the way to simplify all this would be to recognize that : the number 1 can't be multiplying itself and give itself again. 1x1 does not exist in this universe we live in.
Let's say we have 25 pennies spread out amongst 5 bowls. We have 5 pennies in each bowl. Here's quick primer for you for what multiplication represents so you will never be confused again.
So, we have 5 bowls with 5 pennies, we have 5 pennies * 5 groups of pennnies. We have 25 penneis, or .05 * 5 = .25
(Note that we are not multiplying pennies together. A penny squared is not a sensible measurement.)
So, we remove one of the bowls. We have 5 pennies in 4 bowls, or 5 pennies * 4 groups of pennies, which is 20 pennies, which is represented by .05 * 4 = .20
Now, 3 bowls with 5 pennies, we have
.05 * 3 = .15
Then 2 bowls with 5 pennies
.05 * 2 = .10
And finally
.05 * 1 = .05.
Math isn't broken simply because Terrence Howard doesn't understand basic axioms. You're also assuming math has to model real world applications. It doesn't. Explaining things this way is a lot easier than saying, that Terrence Howard didn't define the term multiplication as it is used in mathematics correctly, and doesn't understand the Identity Property of Multiplication is a fundamental axiom.
Not to mention his mathematical models are not consistent. I encourage you to learn math better than Mr. Howard did, and I hope Mr. Howard will come around to realizing why nothing he said was correct. Every single one of us has been at the overconfidence peak of the Dunning-Kruger effect graph at some point in our lives.