@@NewaccountNumber Whats 🍎🍎🍎🍎x 🍎🍎🍎🍎? 16? But there are only 8 apples there. Or maybe you dont understand the difference between multiplication and addition
Also, another concept is defining words. Terrence started off with defining 'multiply' as 'increasing'. While within a conversation, increase can be synonymous with multiply, in mathematical terms, multiply is just a way to do addition a lot quicker, so it has a different definition when it's used in math. 2 x 3 means 2 groups of 3 or 6 individuals 1 x 1 means 1 group of 1 or 1 individual 0 x 10 means zero groups of 10 people or 0 individuals Words can have multiple definitions, and more definitions can be added over time. So if a word is being used in a specific way, and you define a separate concept based off of that word, but using a definition that didn't apply to the original concept, then you will likely create incongruous theories that won't necessarily both be true at the same time.
Wrong Multiplying by 1 is the unity for multiplication, meaning if you multiply by one you get the same thing. 0 is the unity for addition. When you add something you are increasing the amount of things. Nothing to do with defining words.
"When I'm right I'm right, and when I'm wrong I could've been right, so l'm still right cause I could've been wrong, and I could be wrong right now ...but I'm right."
I don’t know what’s worse, the fact that he doesn’t understand basic mathematical principles or the fact that so many people are willing to believe him just because he’s a celebrity and speaks with confidence. It’s sad that so many people can’t explain the SIMPLE reason why 1x1=1.
@@MichaelColeman-ho1bw Sigh….no problem. Imagine you are sitting a room in between two tables. On the table to your left are a bunch of candles in the shape of the number 1. You have a bag with random numbers in it and a big red “X” on the outside of the bag. The table to the right of you is empty. Your job is pull a random number out of the bag with the “X” on it. Whatever number it is, that’s how many “TIMES” you move a candle from the table on your left, to the empty table on the right. Then once you are done, you add up the sum of all the numbers on the table on the right to get your answer. The first time you pull a “7” out of the bag. You move 7 candles from left to right. You add up all the numbers on the table on the right and you get “7”. Therefore 1x7=7. You do this again and you pull out a number “1”. You move one candle from left to right. Then you add it up and get “1”. Therefore 1x1=1. I broke it down in as simplistic a way as possible. I HOPE you can understand how it works and why Terrence Howard needs to just stick to acting and leave the math to his calculator.
@@MichaelColeman-ho1bwon 1x1? 1x1 is 1 because multiply does NOT mean to just "make more" in mathematics. It asks if you have a number a certain number of "times", what us the result. If you have 1 basket of 5 apples, you have 5 apples. So 5 times 1 is still ONE. 5 apples times 2 is 10. Because with 2 baskets you double the amount of one basket. If you eat 1 apple 1 time, you ate 1 apple. 1 times 1 is 1. If you eat 1 apple 3 different times (like for breakfast, lunch, and dinner), you ate 3 apples. 1 times 3 is 3. Its basic understanding of math, yet you have idiots who got famous for acting tricking other idiots into believing this crap. I can't believe this comment section.
Agree ... Mind is a terrible thing...not even to waste.... Just plain terrible with the idiots in this comment section. Shout-out to @gray_gogy... The real MVP.
The square root of any number when cubed will be equal to that number multiplied by its square root, e g (√4)^3= 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 and 4 x √4= (2 x 2) x 2 = 8 Or (√9)^3= 3 x 3 x 3 = 27 and 9 x (√9)= (3 x 3) x 3 = 27 You can do this with any number. Using a number that is not a perfect square like 2 doesn't make it any different, the principles will still apply and you will get the same answer when you plug it into this operation. Its basically the same thing expressed differently.
But wait, that doesn't make sense cause those are too different operations. Also, if you went thru the correct sequence and used perhaps my dear aunt Sally you wud see that shouldn't come about, but alas every calculator will show u that no matter what order u put it in it comes out with the same answer. This means that every calculator is wrong and the entire mathematical endeavour is flawed. Here's another example, how can I order 1 large order of fries and 2 McChickens but the total comes up to a whopping $20.74? It doesnt make any cents so I just leave with the food.
@@sdott9751@chappie3642 answered it in one of the previous comment, I am done for the day, it was fun: """the equation Is the explanation for why he got the "loop". If you take √2 and cube It, you get √8 = √(2³) = 2√2. If you take √2 and you multiply It by 2 you get 2√2. This Is true because √2 Is a solution to x³=2x, meaning that if you take any x that satisfies x³=2x, then you cube x, you Will get exactly x multiplied by 2, and solving the equation gives the solutions 0, √2 and -√2. In facts, try to do this: Open up your calculator Type -√2 Cube It Then do the following Reopen your calculator Type -√2 Multiply It by 2 You Will see that It gives the same result as earlier. There Is absolutely nothing that Is not understood in mathematics about this, and all of this stuff Is extremely basic when compared even to what High schoolers learn in their senior years. """
Simple algebra explains this: It's easier to understand when you write a square root like this: (√x)=x^0.5 x*(√x) = x^1*x^0.5 = x^(1+0.5) = x^1.5 (√x)^3 = (x^0.5)^3 = x^(0,5*3) = x^1.5 What Terrence says highlights that math can be counterintuitive, but then concluding and publicly exclaiming that math is wrong tells you something about how deeply he really thinks about things.
Absolutely correct. The problem with Terrance’s explanation is that he tries to make an equation out of this that’s completely wrong then claims all math is wrong as a result. The equation he said at the end is x^3 = 2x. It’s a polynomial with a solvable value for x. It can be rewritten as x^3 - 2x = 0 and solved with the quadratic equation. So technically yes, x^3 = 2x if you first define x=root 2. If you plug x^3 and 2x into a graphing calculator, they will intercept the x-axis at x=root 2. Therefore his equation isn’t a “mathematical fallacy.” He’s just dumb as fuck.
The equation "x^3=2x" is not a mathematical fallacy because it is a valid mathematical equation. It represents a cubic equation, and it can be solved to find the values of x that satisfy it. The solutions are x = 0, x = √2, and x = -√2, which are all real and valid solutions in the context of mathematics. Fallacies in mathematics typically involve logical errors or contradictions, and this equation does not exhibit such issues. Terrance Howard seems to have no clue what he talks about tbh
I believe that those are irrational numbers (besides zero). So the very name tells you the problem with that concept. So no it is NOT logical smartass. It's just a CONCEPT used in mathematics.
Yeah he has no clue at all, people like him get lost in their own heads without feedback,If he's conclusions are true or were potentially helpful the mathematics community would know his name and he would've had a fields metal, realistically he wouldn't stand in a room with a REAL MATHEMATICIAN. If he's so smart why doesn't he solve the riemann hypothesis😂😂😂😂😂
@@sidvicious647 he doesn't even understand what multiplication is on a fundamental level. a * b is the summation of a, b times. so 1 x 1, is 1. 1 x 2 is 1 + 1 = 2.
@@seanowens3153he’s not an idiot though, the 1 times table is off. 1 person x 1 person in order to multiple would be a minimum of 3. It’s simple math. Multiplication is to increase, 2x2 would be a minimum of 6. It’s natural math
You think so? I have an idea and you have another idea. We give those ideas to each other. If it would be apples we would still have one apple each but because we so not use that math that lie we in reality have TWO ideas EACH. 😮
@@filipzawadzki9424 Thats because you keep your idea and also get his. So you ADD his idea to yours. You dont multiply. If you both have one idea each you already have 2x1 idea. not 1x1
You know the crazy part? Mathematicians already beat him to it, there are already some weird number systems where 1×1=1, they're just not really useful, and they're definitly not what howard is talking about.
Or simply that you've been indoctrinated like Columbus discovering America, Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, and Jesus looking like Brad Pitt
You can’t equate math with English. Multiply does mean ‘to make more of,’ but in math it is a simplified expression of the process. “One times one” = 1 unit in place, 1 time.. 1x4 = 1 unit in place, 4 times etc. I guess we could keep calling it the “times table”, but multiplication sounds cooler and accurately describes the process for every number except 1 and 0. Basically 🤷🏽♂️ I do admire his confidence and the thought he obviously put into this, though.
That's why Terrence became an actor, not a mathematician, physicist, scientist... 😂😂😂 It's almost like you don't choose your career, your career chooses you, based on your talents
@@williepaul9785 so what? And at some point in life he became insane./mentally ill... This happens all the time. I actually feel sorry for him and think he needs help,
This is a great example of how people draw poor, yet interesting, conclusions. Then it goes on the internet and other people who don’t understand the subject think it’s genius. A basic 3rd grade math worksheet disproves his logic.
Tony Stark actually got the idea how to build his core reactor from Terrance, not Howard Stark. Tony overheard Terrance speaking on the imbalance of some of the underlying quantum equations, and he suddenly realized the significance of element 113, which had not yet been manufactured and thought to be highly unstable.
@@jimscycleandautotn8508”elites don’t want me to know that I cant do basic arithmetic” Say when you go to the store and buy something for a dollar, do you give the cashier two dollars and walk out the store? Use your brain (if you can LOL)
right , redo it for us so we can know...he broke down a fraction of the problem and left us with an insult ...but these goofy mfs only care about how "remembered the numbers" Any thing is amazing to people these days ...simple asses
For those curious about the sqrt(2) example, it's not as peculiar as it might seem. In fact, this example can be generalized for any number using the formula: x_n = 2^0.5 * (x/2)^(3^n/2) This can be re-expressed using logarithms to base 2 as follows: x_n = 2^(1/2 + (3^n)/2 * (log_2(x) - 1)) Using this formulation, we can analyze the behavior for different values of x. Let's start with x = 2. Here, the exponent simplifies to 2^(1/2), which is indeed sqrt(2), as mentioned in the "loop" example 😅. For x > 2, the term (log_2(x) - 1) is positive, and thus the exponent tends to infinity as n approaches infinity. Consequently, the entire series diverges since 2^y approaches infinity as y goes to infinity. For x < 2, the term (log_2(x) - 1) is negative. Therefore, the second term in the exponent becomes negative, and for large n, the entire exponent trends towards negative infinity. As a result, the series converges to 0 since 2^y approaches 0 as y goes to negative infinity. And please do not let me start with the discussion about 1*1=2 (Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard).
You didnt even have to discuss it at this length , dude just performed basically the same operation lmfao √2X√2X√2 = 2X√2 man i feel so stupid even writing this😂😂 this dude doing drugs from some other planet
Terrence Howard doesn't understand basic math is the moral of the story. The square root of any number then cubed will always equal the square root of the number multiplied by that number. (√x)^3 = x√x because (√x)^3 = (√x)(√x)(√x) = x√x It's not that crazy bro. Terrence Howard, as genius or talented he may be as an actor/performer, doesn't know basic "algae brah".
What the … people think he‘s spitting facts?? Get out a pencil and a paper and figure it out yourself, when in doubt, write it out, it’s not a tough puzzle at all
Is he saying 1 bag with 1 candy is 2 items. 2 bags with 2 candy’s is 4 items. And 5 bags with 5 members is 10 things total. Is that why he is saying 1*1 is 2?
I think it's more about practical application of the concept rather than the logic of math itself being flawed. We run into these conundrums when we multiply by 0 as well because while the sum always being 0 makes sense, the very act of multiplying implies the presence of something that can be replicated. Ergo, more of something. Not zero. Unless it's somehow "more" zero/nothing. I don't know. I don't do drugs so I'm not going to waste any time on that. The answer is 0. For my own sanity.
not all math is practical, some of it falls into the abstract until it can be used practically. That is why we have engineers. What he is doing is pushing a fallacy to those who may or may not be ignorant of math. I’m not against the man and his thought process but the lie he may or may not know he is pushing.
[Sqrt(2)]^3 = Sqrt(2)*2 Expand the left: Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) = Sqrt(2)*2 Factor out the right: Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) = Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) The equation balances out. There is nothing “unnatural” about it. Dude just failed algebra. It just feels “unnatural” if your brain can only process integers for the equation x^3 = 2*x. How is he going to debunk math if he can’t even solve for x^3 = 2*x.
@@TitoMcFadden Multiplication of x and y can be thought of intuitively as "each container has x objects, and there are y containers, how many objects are there?" If x = 0, then we can rephrase the question as " each container has no objects, and there are y containers" . In this case, no matter what the value of y is, there are still going to be 0 objects in total
@@dBakaj when u get to this part Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) = Sqrt(2)*2 Factor out the right: it would be Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) = Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) so no there is something not right
One, one time will always be one. "Times Tabel." Multiplication is the number "times" itself, not in addition to itself. If you place one item one "time" in the refrigerator, you don't open the door to multiples of the same item later.
That’s your own personal perspective. What if you put one gallon of milk in the fridge. To a tribal or primitive person they might see two items. The milk in which they can drink. And the container which they can use to store something in later.
To multiply to the best of my knowledge means to increase in number So if I have multiple of one thing at a bare minimum I have 2 of said thing so to have one multiple of 1 thing is to have 2 therefore 1 x 1 is indeed 2
I wish I could tell him 2x1 is also 2. It’s a man made formula and the default of multiplying a number by one means it doesn’t multiply. You could simply ignore the 1s but what happens when you have multiple scenarios in an equation with the same formula but one of them doesn’t multiply? You can’t skip the step. You multiple by 1. I tried to make sense of what he said but I can’t even understand what he’s thinking about it. Like starting a formula with the answer.
What is he talking about tho? mind you I’m no math wiz but tryna explain why 1x1 doesn’t equal 1 sounds lil suspect but hearing his recent stuff lately the guy seems like he’s on a mission for something and God bless him👍👍🏻👍🏼👍🏽👍🏾👍🏿
U proved his point. He just used 1×1, & you used 2×1. Dats his point, since they don't multiply, & by definition multiply means to increase in number, they're mathematical falsies. To his point, any two numbers dat don't increase in number wen multiplied are mathematical falsies.
@@onyeilonyeil9468he was a little off. It's just a language meant to represent reality. If you have a pair of socks on the table, in math language you would denote that as 2(socks) x1. It's not a fallacu or false. It's just language. It's like arguing about the meaning of words... It's just language. It means nothing here. It's like people arguing the earth is flat.
For one to say:“The fact that the cube of a number equals 2 times that number, points out to fallacies in fundamental mathematical system”, is unreasonable really... Because this is just purely logically and mathematically true. Because for there to be a number N such that: N³=2N => N³ - 2N = 0 => N ×(N² - 2)=0 hence: N=0 or N² -2= 0 => N²= 2 :-) N= √2 Hence the only two numbers that satisfy this function are 0 and √2 Check: 0³=2×0=0 Also √2³= 2×√2= 2√2 Because√2³=√8=√4 ×√2= 2×√2=2√2 So I don't see any fallacy ...it's just a fact that different numbers can function in different functions which no other number can function...(all numbers are special:-);-) Okay here's another number X such that Y⁴=3Y.... and the only two numbers that satisfy this function are 0 and the cube root of 3.. no other numbers
That’s not being a free thinker, that’s just not understanding mathematics. That’s like making up words off the top of your head and being surprised that everybody else doesn’t know them…
This is a perfect way to explain it to someone who doesn’t understand (for example: Terrence Howard) I would love to see him go on one of these recorded interviews/podcasts, and another person pull out some bills and walk him through that like he’s 5 years old. “Okay now please hand me ONE, ONE dollar bill. That’s 1x1. Now how much money do I have? That’s right. Just one dollar.” lol
That is how you were explained the concept of multiplication in grade school and it sounds logical until you actually multiply. 1 thing multiplied cannot remain 1, if it does then it has not been multiplied. Yes I know one thing one time I was also in grade school but the challenging idea is that there is something fundamentally wrong when logic is applied. If I put a rock in an aquarium and then it becomes 2 I could say that rock just multiplied itself, and you might ask how many times did it multiply? I look and see two and say it multiplied one time not two times ya dig?
@@IsraeliteLife 🤦🏻♂️ In multiplication, the number 1 is called the multiplicative identity because any number multiplied by 1 remains unchanged. When you multiply any number by 1, the product is always the original number. So, 1×11×1 equals 1 because the multiplication of 1 by itself, or any number by 1, is defined to be the number itself. It's a fundamental property of multiplication, and the number 1 serves as the identity element for multiplication.
@@RocsMacho1 bruh.... I know what you were taught. But multiplication is the equivalent of increase and if something does not increase then it has not multiplied. All that accurate so far Therefore 1 multiplied 1 time cannot be 1 because you have failed to multiply. I don't care what you were taught, does the previous sentence make logical sense. Your answer should be yes yes it does and moving forward what needs to be done is clarification of the application of the term multiplication
@@IsraeliteLife You are using the textbook definition of multiply that means to increase and trying to force that into algebra. Multiplication in math has been used by ancient Egyptians, Greeks & more. For thousands of years... and here we have some real geniuses who think they discovered some new concept and how everyone else is wrong 🤦🏻♂️
The exact same people who didn't pay ANY attention in math class because it wasnt "cool" but instead decided to become experts at listening to rap music, are now in here calling an actor a math genius because he said something that sounded cool to them just because it goes against what is already established.
Those multiple meanings are subjective within individual aptitudes. which leads to. Complications When claiming absolutions in relative equations.that are used to vaguely justify our reality. Our reality has to be explained using some form of media Here the media is language itself. The Letters and number icons are situated as codes for justification of our reality As part of the communication spectrum
That's why so called scientists can't figure it out because they talk with a fork tung . And the great mr Howard can explain it so that a 9 year old can interpret the truth . If 1 times 0 = 0 where did the 1 go . Ok let's plug it into reality let me borrow $1 and I'll pay you back $0 and let's call it even .
What "good" question is that? This discussion is based off the false premise that the word "multiply" only means one thing. A false premise will generally lead to a false conclusion. All you have to do is use a synonym to explain the word "multiply" in terms of mathematics. For instance, the word "multiply" can be explained as "sets of." You can perform similar pseudo-intellectual verbal gymnastics with the words "equal" and "divide" when discussing mathematical language. @@thermologo3451
Highly intelligent!! And I notice alot of people are willing to dismiss the obvious because it does not coincide with the narrative we've been trained to adopt. Terrance Howard is a Genius and a Scholar
Terrence's Agent: I support you 100 percent. Terrence Howard: You fired then. Agent: Why? TH: Because those zeros have no value. How can you possibly support me zero twice and then one more time? Agent: So you owe me 11 percent then? TH: Exactly! Now cube it.
1 multiple by any number reflects back the number projected it’s like looking in a mirror and seeing yourself. (2 x 1 = 2, 3 x 1 = 3 therefore 1 x 1 = 1) 1 can only reflect what it sees or what was projected. Therefore it’s impossible for 1 to reflect as 3 if 3 was never the number projected in the mirror ( Mirror meaning the number 1)
So if your employer told you that your check would be multiplied once yearly would you not be upset to see no increase on your check after a years work, would you not feel deceived?
Well, first of all I have several companies. I don’t have an employer. Second if I was working for an employer and I wanted a raise I would make myself extremely valuable to the company where I could command how much I get pay. If that doesn’t work you move on.
@@jayphillips1011 fair then I will be more straightforward: a. I would love to hear more about you businesses maybe we could collaborate on something. b. If you have one thing and multiply it zero times you still have one thing. If you have zero things and you multiply it one time you still have zero. 0•1=0 but 1•0=1 1•2=3 yet 2•1=4 If you have one thing and it multiplies itself one time you now have two of that thing and if that one thing multiplied itself twice you now have 3, hence 1•2=3 however if you have two of something and it multiplies one time you will have a total of four therefore 2•1=4 and we are introduced to an idea that the fundamentals of mathematics is illogical or it could be argued that language is flawed. Either way this is not a subject that should be trashed simply because we have been trained to memorize a multiplication table.
You're looking at it only as if you are the number one. What if it's being observed while it looks in the mirror. Then I would see 2 of you. But that the number reflected and the number. But then you step back and see the number in the equation that would be the third number one. So the original #1. The reflected #2 and the reflection of the #1.
@@BiggestMarph Repeated addition is also known as multiplication. This is because both the methods, although different, give the same answer. For example, if 3 is repeated four times we can either solve it as 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12 OR we can solve it as 4 times 3 = 4 ✕ 3 = 12.
One times one equals one because the equation submits to say how many times is there one there? One time. If there is only one multiple there, then there is only that number there. What he did was apply the word multiply to mean multiples are being created. But that isnt what is happening. What is happening is multiples are being counted. So something times one is always that single something.
Ok your saying 1×0=0 Let me borrow a $100 and I'll pay you back 0 and call it even if you want my cas app let's do it ? Because 100 ×0 =0 according to the formula wen I pay you back 0 it's correct for me to keep the $100 because you never gave me anything. And according to the formula that you believe in if I take you to court with that logic I'll defently win the suit . Unless you change the formula to reflect that 100+ -100 is 0 which means I paid you back and the debt is canceled Or you say 100×0=100 which is correct because it would represent that I paid you 0 and still owe you 100. Mind f%$k 101 this is how to steal legally . If you belive it to be true that 100×0=0 lend me 100. I'll pay you back 0 and we call it even.
@boomclash101 you OBVIOUSLY didn't read what I said. You are interpreting the question wrong. The question is how many multiples of 100 is there if there are zero multiples? The answer is zero. If there are zero multiples then there would be no hundreds there. That whole tangent you went on had zero multiples of what I said included in it. So you were talking non-sense.
What Terrance is saying is that it only works conceptually. In nature there would never be a time where you would multiply something by itself. And even if you did nothing is an exact copy of itself from one moment to the next. It's a trivial point, he just makes it sound compelling.
@@boomclash101you brilliantly succeeded in proving your complete lack of understanding of not only basic math, but also of the english language... good job 👏 👍
@smilyle Yes, there wouldn't be a time where you would multiply something by itself. But that is and was never the question. The way the question is posed in a class setting for instance, is not the question being asked I'm reality. This is why with that aspect he is wrong. A bunch of other things he is right on. For instance, in a class setting, the teacher may ask, "what is one times one?" This would make you think an action is being done to CREATE something. But from a mathematicians perspective, that isn't what the question is REALLY asking. The question is asking about what already is, not what is to become. "If on a table there are four groups, and in each group there are four seeds in it. How many seeds are there on the table?" That is what multiplication is used for. So the equation would be 4 X 4 = 16. Four multiples of four is 16. This is what is wrong with the school system. They don't even teach the understandings in basic math and what the point is for. If they taught that people would be better off in life. But they don't want that. They want everyone to be dumb and reliant on other people. Such is our current state and culture, I guess.
2x=x+x=x^3 2x=x+x is obviously correct since 2x means 2 groups of x or x+x x^3=2x, lets solve for x x^3/x=2 x^2=2 x=±√2 this means that IF x=√2, the equation is satisfied. He just used a value for x when the equation is satisfied.
This is misleading, 1 × 1 definitely = 1. However if you listen carefully to what he says, he's actually saying is 1.4142135628 x 1.4142135628 = 2 which is correct.
It's a clever trick but it's the same equation basically. Once you have the square of 2 , 1.414213....... and cube it meaning 1.414213.....x 1?414213... You get 2, then multiply that by 1.414213.... you get that 2.82.......number. it's not a fallacy it's the correct answer because it's the same equation .
@@ramfanbland I'm not sure if your agreeing with me or not, so I'm just gonna break down everything wrong with your message. also, for this message, assume that 1.414 means the sqrt(2) 2x and x^3 are not the same equation (I'll prove it later by contradiction) the square of 2 is 4 not 1.414, the square root of 2 is 1.414 cube does not mean 1.414213x1.414213, cube means 1.414213x1.414213x1.414213 or 2x1.414 sqrt(2)^3 is not equal to 2, its equal to 2sqrt(2) its not the correct answer because its the same equation, it is the correct answer because it satisfies the equation. If it was the same equation it would be true for all x∈R, so 2x=x^3 for the sake of contradiction, let x = 2 (since you said it was the same equation, so it should hold) 2x2 = 2^3 2x2=2x2x2 4=8 thus we have reached a contradiction, so our initial assumption was wrong, they are not the same QED.
Loop easily explained: In theory, if you were dealing with exact mathematical operations and infinite precision, you wouldn't expect this kind of repeating cycle. However, the cycle you're observing is a result of the limitations of representing real numbers in a computer's finite precision. When you perform calculations with decimal numbers in a computer, there's a limit to the precision of those numbers. As you repeatedly perform operations like cubing and dividing, small errors accumulate, leading to the appearance of a cycle. The limitations of floating-point arithmetic in computers can introduce rounding errors, and those errors can create patterns or cycles in certain mathematical operations. In the idealized realm of pure mathematics, such a cycle might not occur, but the practical constraints of computing introduce these nuances. It's a fascinating aspect of numerical computation and precision limitations.
You just wasted your time in explaining this to a retarted group of people and channel creator. Terrance Howard is a genius for these people. I swear an asteroid heading towards Earth does not sound bad right now. We really need a do over.
Met him as a kid in 01 playing basketball in burbank @ the YMCA before he became known.. as a kid i remember thinkin how humble dood was. Hes an actor and showed up in a 1985 red nissan sentra
@@ProvokenThought Me too 1987 4 door red 5 speed …. Taught all my friends to drive a stick in 2 months… my bff got same car only 2 door a year later in 1989❤ Miss my car😊
It's actually a pretty simple trick T.Howard did there, when you square a number that's not a perfect square, it will round off the numbers to the nearest whole number, but it won't be accurate, that's why his math doesn't add up
@@VillainArch22he doesn’t know that something cubed is multiplying the square value by the original number. For example 2 is the square root of 4. 2x4=8 2 cubed is also 8.
@@vixen_0072what I understand is that 2 different routes made the same answer and according to “math” as we know it( taught in schools) say we could not
The x in the equation means how many times the number is occurring. 1x1 means 1 is occurring 1 time. That's why the equations are reversible 1x2 means 1 occurring 2 times or 2 occurring 1 time Same with 0
This is a very deep subject, very well explained in a very short amount of time. I had no idea Terrance Howard was onto the truth so deeply. No wonder he isn't cast in more Hollywood "make you believe" films. He is dangerous to the establishment.
@brian1436 your a fool because what he just discussed demonstrates that if you accept it, that 1x1 does not equal 1, but rather 1x1=2. If you watch any of his other lectures beyond the 60 seconds on this short video you will learn he actually patented the statement and information being discussed and he is calling for an audit of our foundational mathematical principal models we use in physics because it's incorrect. So, no. You are completely wrong. But thank you for attempting to remind me of my own stupidity. Again, you are mistaken by your own level of ignorance. Good day.
@@LordCLecter idk what this is about but all you have to do is know that √2 • √2 = 2. A square root is the opposite of squaring. So if you square a square root you get the number itself. That is why √2^3 = √2 • 2. Doofuses
Just so you understand this, an action times an action is an action squared. Not an action times 1. Simple multiplication is taking an object and multipliying it by the amount of times it occurs, not by multiplying it by itself. He's applying really high level thinking to a problem that doesnt exist.
Multiplication in mathematics is defined as: the process of combining matrices, vectors, or other quantities under specific rules to obtain their product. He is conflating a non math definition with math itself.
@@martinturner5766 that's a lot of words to say you have no idea what you are talking about. He is wrong, and you can be wrong with him. Blindly believing some entertainers semi lucid ramblings is not a virtue and is not wisdom.
@@martinturner5766 No, your glaring ignorance and overwhelmingly unjustified confidence does though. I spent 18 months in the Navy's nuclear power program, and after a decade in Nuclear power got out and studied Data Science at George Mason University. Where did you study?
If you let x=0 you get: 0^3=2*0 which in turn gives 0=0 If you let x=2^(1/2), an other way of writing root of 2, you get: left 2^3/2=2^(1/2+2/2)=2^1/2*2^2/2= 2*2^1/2 Which is exactly what you have in the right side. This is all basic arithmetic’s, it’s not up for discussion. You can define other ways to do math which are totally fine, it doesn’t make this way “wrong”. For example, 1+1 is not always equal to 2, in fact 1+1=0 (mod 2) Or converting between your digital and regular watch, you are in mod 12, that is 13:00 is the same as 1, but so is 1:00.
@coolg6463 There are tons of nuances within math that can make someone seem like a math wiz. There are tons of books on mental math. I seriously doubt that he sits around doing high-level math for fun.
Clearly ladies and gentlemen education is not the key to success, Terrance Howard is living pretty without it. He's making millions without understanding the most basic arithmetic, whilst some of us are making thousands with stochastic calculus. EDIT: I know this is a sample size of 1, but you get it.
The “reaction” is the fact that 1 set of 1 is still 1. Terry has “pridefully unorthodoxed” himself into insanity. 😂. He is like a walking talking version of the episode of the Office where Michael Scott tries to help the kid with homework.
I used to frustrate my elementary math teachers when I would do 0 x A = A and then ask them to show me how they get 0 but prove it using real things 😂 same thing with 1 x a 😂😂😂
@@trowabarton101. I agree with that. I do have a question though because in multiplication using numerals, expressions written in reverse provide the same product. So if 2*0=0 then 0*2=0. Getting back to the scenario you provided, how would that expression work in reverse. If you had 2 apples multiplied in 0 groups, how do we logically get to 0? Why do the 2 apples disappear when multiplied against the 0 in the material world?
@@ameseginalehu_imaginations they don't disappear, when you ask what 2 apples times zero is in the real world is the same as asking what happens when you take 2 apples and not do anything to them. Zero is not a value it's a representation of nothing, it's the lack of value that makes zero-zero. So if make zero groups of two (two of anything apples, pears, etc) I have no groups because I don't make groups in the first place. By default if you have 2 apples you have 1 group of 2 apples or 2 groups of 1 apple. You can't multiply by zero in "the material world" for the same reason you can't add zero, take away zero or divide by zero because it's the same as adding "nothing" to your equation- your answer would be undefined (because it's impossible to do. )
I would say one because I was taught so, but Terrence would say anything multiply by 1 isn’t multiplying. The answer stays the same. So 1 in multiplication shouldn’t exist 🤷🏼♀️because it defeats the purpose of making a number to multiply 🤷🏼♀️
His problem is that he didn’t start with the correct definition of the identity property of 1 which states any real number multiplied by 1 equals itself. That can be proven too and for him to disprove that he must write a formal proof with no contradictions. Math is actually so complicated that even the basics we learn in grade school can require much higher mathematics to prove. I learned that after getting 2 math degrees and didn’t like math all that much after that.
@@ibelieveinmedoyoubelievein7257 It basically doesn't exist. People don't write "1 times" in equations at all because it is redundant. 1 * 1 = 1 when simplified is just 1 = 1, because there is no point in writing that multiplication out
Love how he used 2 to explain why 1x1 doesn’t equal 1. It’s really simple if you just pay attention to what multiply means So if you multiply 1 and 1 that means that you have 1 OF 1 that means you got 1. If you have 1 OF 2 or 2 OF 1 you get 2. It doesn’t have to be this hard Terrence Howard. Just replace the multiplication sign with of.
@@db5094 That's the whole point: Multiply as in the the action,should carry the same universal definition across the board.Just because a trickster from whatever year, decided to say "multiply in math doesn't meant to actually multiply the amount u have", that doesn't mean I or u or anybody else has to follow wat that idiot said. I find it beyond strange that this word & action supposedly means the contrary when we are dealing with numbers.I pointed out several things here in the comments & I see certain things Ive said has been deleted but I say again, Terrance isn't the only one that knows we have all been lied to. I say again,those who control this world knows 1 multiplied one time is actually 2.
@@youllbeallrighti6795 "Multiply as in the the action,should carry the same universal definition across the board" - Why? Bark has two differnt meanings (dog noise and tree skin) - Also, the first definition on google is the mathematical sense "obtain from (a number) another which contains the first number a specified number of times." "multiply in math doesn't meant to actually multiply the amount u have" - Who is saying this? multiply has 2 meanings, one meaning is: a*b means a groups of b. The other meaning is: increase. - The meaning in math is the following: a*b means a groups of b "I find it beyond strange that this word & action supposedly means the contrary when we are dealing with numbers" - if you use multiply as increase in your daily life, then the contrary would be to decrease, not stay the same. - Also, there are 2 definitions for multiply "Terrance isn't the only one that knows we have all been lied to" - Who is lying to us? what do they want? why are they lying to us? how does math still work despite them lying to us? can you provide me your mathematical definition for multiply and we can check if it makes sense in the real world. "1 multiplied one time is actually 2" - answer this question then: if you buy one(1) box, which contains one(1) rock in it, how many total rocks do you have? The answer is found by multiplying the numbers together.
Soo 2•√2 = √2•√2•√2 2 = √2•√2 …….. what’s the issue? It works with any number… obviously 😂 The fundamentals of algebra are perfectly fine thanks Terrance.
If reality is energy and individual life is perception of that energy, Each life living a unique experience relative to that energy... everyone is right while also being wrong...
This ties in with the Mandela effect . Some people remember there heart on the left side (it’s in the middle now look at “heart location pictures” on google ), some remember stouffers stove top stuffing but it doesn’t exist it’s always been Kraft brand , some remember there being an ice cap on the top and the bottom of the globe but now North Pole is water no land mass is there , some people remember the rock saying “ can you smell what the rock is cooking “ but he never said that in this reality it’s always been “ IF YOU smell what the rock is cooking “ some people remember that way but if some of these Mandela effects don’t wake you up from this world than there’s many others out there online
Because multiplication deals with sets. 1 set of 1 is one. 1 set of 2 is 2. I explain it like a box of action figures to my 8 yo son so he understands the concept if what's he doing. If it's one box of action figure with one action figure, it's still just one. If there's 1 box of action figure with two action figures, it's two action figures in 1 box.
This certainly has sparked a conversation. I do not know if he is correct or not, but I am not going to call him crazy either. He has spoken at MIT and Oxford, so he must be fairly smart. I just like the conversations it has sparked and made people think. This is needed in today's climate.
He's not right! I don't know if he's a con man or crazy, but I know he's wrong.😅 probability events are not the same as the multiplier identity (1) x 1=1. Don't be gaslighted. 💕🖖
@@dakmycat3688 *They do know what they're doing. You should Google why 1x1=1. But in short, 1 when multiplying is a multiple identifer, so when times any number = that number. Same with 1/1=1. Terrance is confusing action x action which is probabilty. Ex. What's the odds of 2 coins flipping heads or tails? Each flip is a seperate event. a/b x a/b = a/b. This is not the same as 1x1=1. I hope this helps. 💕🖖
1 x 1 is still 1. Don’t believe the hype! And don’t allow others to trip you up with words. With these tactics, having a command of the English language is paramount; because in order to stress what you are saying & to explain what you are saying, you will need to choose your words wisely. Multiplying is not adding; adding is adding. Multiplying is multiplying😆. It’s taking a group of sets of numbers & combining them & then summing them up to a grand total. If ever you are in doubt of what you heard, repeat it, hopefully word for word, back to the sender, for confirmation. Do this: 1. To make sure you heard correctly & 2. To allow you more time to process what was said……………………😏
Initially, I thought 1x1=2, but 1+1=2. It’s 1 times itself, which is 1, that’s what my second-grade teacher told me. Then again, Terrace is an ACTOR! 🤷🏽♀️
Really? Youean walked away after becoming a millionaire and no longer needing to act because most likely he invested his money carefully and is now living comfortably off his royalties and investments. Not to hard to walk away. Chamillionaire walked away from rap after a huge hit and become dumb rich.
Middle school level algebra here we go: 2x = x^3 Divide by x on both side to get: 2 = x^2 Take the square root of both sides: X = sqrt(2), the exact number he used for the example. This means this is not a fallacy. It would have been an error in math (more likely the calculator) if one of the solutions to this problem wasn’t sqrt(2). He literally proved himself wrong. Unbelievably stupid
@@ieaiaioinc.5258 it’s especially funny because 2x = x+x by definition lol. That equation is universally true, it works for all numbers, not even just sqrt(2)
The flower of Life is Jesus Christ we Colossians 1 without Jesus Christ there is no meth there is no life there is no light at the end of the tunnel there is no knowledge without Jesus Christ there is no air to breathe without Jesus
For anyone is curious to see why he is wrong: Simply put x^3=2x=x+x is not a weird equation in any way. Its a bit strange to have three equal signs, but the second and third statement are completely equivalent. Its the same thing as x^3=2x which is a perfectly normal cubic equation like any other. It has a solution, which in this case is squareroot(2)*2. If you know the fractional exponent rule you can show sqrt(2)*2 = 2^(1/2)*2^1 And by the product rule for exponents: 2^(1/2)*2^1=2^((1/2)+1)=2^(3/2) Which by the fractional exponent rule again yields: Sqrt(2)^3. Tldr he had them both calculate sqrt(2)*2 in different ways and then pretended that it was weird that they were the same answer. Terence howard knows less than the average 9th grader.
This is nothing mystical or conspiratorial, it’s because numbers in a calculator are not stored or represented properly, as whole numbers (integers) or fractions (rational numbers), but as floating-point numbers with limited precision (limited number of decimal points). It’s not that someone “deliberately” did this to deceive anyone, it’s due to the limits of memory, how much space do you have to store the values you work with (I.e. how many decimal points can you store before you have to start rounding up, e.g. 1/3 on a calculator will either be truncated to 1.333333333 or rounded up to 1.33333334, because that’s how the number is stored, so on a calculator, (1/3=1.3333333)*3=9.99999999 when we know 1/3 * 3 is actually 1. It’s not a conspiracy, Terrence, I agree it’s stupid, floating-point numbers are an abomination but they are ‘close enough’ for a simple calculator.
Good point but it's deeper that just a calculator it's like in quantum physics no matter how they do the math they can't explain it it's because the math is wrong to begin with . The couldn't explain quantum entanglement hear is the start . Phi pie and si lol 😆. But 1×1 does equal 2 . But not a perfect 2 or a perfect 1 it's always slightly off in search of perfection it gets closer and closer to perfection at every advancement seems ima have to realern multiplication
It has nothing to do with floating point precision. Square root of two is irrational anyway and if you work it out symbolically it still resolves itself. x^3 = 2*x, x^3 / x = 2, x^2 = 2, x = sqrt(2). I don't even know what he's trying to say in this video other than multiplication with fractions/decimals doesn't match his intuition based on multiplication with whole numbers. It shouldn't, because there's fractions involved which is division.
@@twisted.mentat757 @twisted.mentat757 I think he said that 1×1=2 and not 1 . And the facts that when you do the calculation in multiplication the number is not multiplied instead it stays the same the identity property. Is an error because to multiply is to increase. We've been duped . Like fractional reserved banking where 1 =10 the math shows how its possible. Close your mind and listen carefully then reply again because I'm sure someone like you can work out the math and the math will reveal the answer. 1 +0 =1 so 1 ×0 =1 not zero because multiplication is just addition .
@@boomclash101 Multiplication IS just addition represented another way. So for x * y, you make a consecutive sum of x carried out y times. Or vice versa because of the commutative property. So 1 x 0 = 0 (sum of one zero times), 1 x 1 = 1 (sum of one one time), 1 x 2 = 1 + 1 (sum of one two times), etc. If I say I'm going to give you one dollar zero times, you're not getting the dollar. If I say I'm going to give you one dollar one time, you're getting one dollar. Etc. So given this definition 1 * 0 does not equal 1 and 1 * 1 does not equal two. Yeah the numbers do not technically multiply when multiplied by 0 or 1. So why change the definition to make it not logical? If I say I'm going to give you a dollar zero times suddenly you get the dollar? Makes no sense.
@@boomclash101 The math doesn't need to explain quantum entanglement, are you are oxygen-deprived? Multiplication as defined on the real numbers have NOTHING to do with quantum entanglement, and makes no claim about quantum states at all. Before I waste my time and we go any further, I need you to prove that you have some minimal understanding of algebra: define what the difference between a ring and a field is in your own words without having to look it up/google it. What about multiplication on integers, is that well-defined? If no, are there any cases where it is defined and complete? What's the common symbolic representation of the additive identity?
To all software developers, i know the pain and cringe you guys feel when he fails to comprehend what float precision is and how it is limited in electronic devices.
This is embarrassing to watch, he has convinced himself he's a mathmatician and got 1x1 wrong, and even after having the answer told to him he doubles and triples down on his wrong conclusions.
Terrence it's not an action times an action,it's only one action, you have one multiplier times one object. Multiplication simply put is fast addition.
It’s not even an action at all, it’s much more defined and general concept than this, but as far as multiplication defined on real numbers like in the common arithmetic to get an answer, then yeah, it’s like factors of addition.
@@ramfanblandyou just perpetuated the flaw again. simply put it can't be the act of multiplying if the number stays the same is what he is basically saying. 1 multiplied by 1 doesn't acutally add nor do the act of multiplying just repeats don't care how you try to use different equations. I'm not saying i agree nor disagree with what he is getting at but to that point i see what point he is trying to convey
He made it confusing by using the square root of 2. It would have been much cleaner with a perfect square. By definition, for any number x: x cubed equals x squared times x You’re just multiplying the square root by the square (radicand) giving you the cube
♦️ in math, multiply doesn't require an increase in quantity...but I understand why he's questioning it... ♦️ also, the equations he mentioned are not fallacies... because they are valid equations with valid solutions.... again, I understand why he's questioning it ---- it's because of how unusual it seems to make operations on a number and get back the same number... ♦️ sometimes...it's still good to question it...even if it seems fundamentally true ...
Is this recent? I watched his "talk" at that college a few years back and couldn't stop laughing but I figured he would eventually talk to a mathematician and get himself sorted out but I guess that never happened
The easiest way to spot an unintelligent person is when they immediately dismiss something because it opposes what they were taught in the institutional public school system 😂
@@MarcusTheDarkness an even easier way is when someone beautifully illustrates the dunning Kruger effect by leaving a comment in a public forum. Well done! To be clear, the concept of multiplication while differing in execution has remained conceptually the same since its first recorded occurrences in summerian and Egyptian texts. (It's also taught in private schools too lol ) Simply put because both you and Terrance Howard obviously don't gasp it would be that multiplication is the number of iterations of something. One with one iteration is was and always will be one. Even simpler 7 counted only one time is 7... It's not 14.. Again thanks for the comment and your textbook DK example 💯
This dude has no idea what he is talking about or how exponents work. I have a Masters in Mechanical engineering, here's what he told the two guys to do: Guy 1: (2^(1/2)×2×1/2)^3= (2^(1/2)×2^1×2^(-1))^3= (2^(3/2)×2^(-1))^3= (2^(1/2))^3= 2^(3/2) Guy 2: ((2^(1/2))^3×1/2)^3= (2^(3/2)×2^(-1))^3= (2^(1/2))^3= 2^(3/2) So yeah the results are the same if you just know simple rules of how exponents work. He acts like this is some crazy thing, it's not. He literally only proved that square root of 2 raised to the third is equal to itself. He needs to lay off the weed.
Both u niggas be makin shit more complicated so the system sums it up 😂😂 simple explanation here: 1 times 1 is 1 because if you take 1 apple 🍎 1 time 🕜 and check how many apples you have... you got 1 😊😮😂😂😂 1x1=1! 1 times 2 is 2 because if you take 1 apple 🍎 2 times 🕑 and check how many you have... you got 2 🎉🤣🤣🤣
Think of 1 x 1 like this: Imagine you have 1 box of crayons, and each box has only 1 crayon inside. Now, if someone asks you how many crayons you have in total, you just have that 1 crayon from your 1 box. So, 1 box times 1 crayon in each box equals 1 crayon in total. It's just a simple way of saying you're not really adding anything extra, you're just sticking with what you already have - which is 1 crayon. The definition is wrong Multiplication is a mathematical operation that involves adding a number to itself a certain number of times.
Listen Terrance, calm down multiplication is not a fundamental law of the universe its just a something humans made up to make adding the same number to itself "multiple" times easier, The second number just represents the anount of times that number should exist in the equation.
1 x 1 = 1 because 1 x anything(number) is the thing(number) i.e 1x2=2 1x3=3 Rules help to make things clear, but if you ignore the rules and operate on your own perception we will get many answers.
There's nothing anomalous about this equation at all. Root 2 multiplied by itself is 2. Root 2 multiplied by itself and then multiplied by itself again gets you 2.82... Which is the same as saying root 2 multiplied by 2. Why is everyone so amazed by this?
This is not genius…this is a man more determined to be a trailblazer than he is determined to follow rules of arithmetic. It is utterly impossible for those two numbers to be the same. The reason it appears the same is twofold. 1)The calculator does not show enough digits…and it couldn’t. The answer is an irrational number that repeats forever. 2) Because and the iPhone calculators round to begin with, then continue using the rounded number, the problems caused by the missing digits are exacerbated. It’s the rounding that makes them look equal, but its happening on a small level. Let me show you an example…. The square root of 4.4 is about 2.09 The square root of 4.5 is about 2.12. If your calculator only goes to one decimal place, both answers will be 2.1 !!! The rounding would make them appear equal. This is what’s happening, except there are way more digits cut off by the calculator here.
1 +1 =3 if you don't pullout
Could be 4😅😅😅
Or 5 😂
It could continue to be 2 if you're shooting blanks...
😂😂😂😂
Facts multiplication ✖️
Stay in school kids 😂
What is 🍎 × 🍎?
@@NewaccountNumbermultiplication is meant to be used on numbers, not apples, you just proved phantom's point, stay in school.
@@MisterUrbanWorld that's because that's not a thing.
School has dumbed every1 down. Just look how every1 behaves.
@@NewaccountNumber Whats 🍎🍎🍎🍎x 🍎🍎🍎🍎? 16? But there are only 8 apples there. Or maybe you dont understand the difference between multiplication and addition
Imagine his child asking him to help with homework
His child will know better not to ask hot help by the time he’s 5/6yrs old.
Gawd! 🥱 1x1 is not a test of multiplication.
He is probably the kind of father that fights with the teacher because the kid failed at math
@@justinbostic9717 lol, what nonsense is that? Nothing is true? 1x1 = 2 because nothing is true?
Also, another concept is defining words.
Terrence started off with defining 'multiply' as 'increasing'. While within a conversation, increase can be synonymous with multiply, in mathematical terms, multiply is just a way to do addition a lot quicker, so it has a different definition when it's used in math.
2 x 3 means 2 groups of 3 or 6 individuals
1 x 1 means 1 group of 1 or 1 individual
0 x 10 means zero groups of 10 people or 0 individuals
Words can have multiple definitions, and more definitions can be added over time. So if a word is being used in a specific way, and you define a separate concept based off of that word, but using a definition that didn't apply to the original concept, then you will likely create incongruous theories that won't necessarily both be true at the same time.
I like how you broke it down in another way i saw what you was talking about
Are you a teacher if not think twice about it
1 person or thing can't be classified as a (group) though eh?
Wrong
Multiplying by 1 is the unity for multiplication, meaning if you multiply by one you get the same thing. 0 is the unity for addition. When you add something you are increasing the amount of things.
Nothing to do with defining words.
Educate yourself properly
He loves showing people that he's memorized the sqrt of 2 to 9 decimal places.
That’s the only real skill he can demonstrate
I mean isn't that what all ppl who study math do??? Even teachers 😅
@@Rubrick23. do you think math skills are evaluated on how many numbers you memorize? search up topology and real analysis, your mind will be blown
It's to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about
hahahahahahhahahaha
"When I'm right I'm right, and when I'm wrong I could've been right, so l'm still right cause I could've been wrong, and I could be wrong right now ...but I'm right."
best comment 💯
Right
A man with a line like that is in another sphere, he sure is.
Get rich or die trying. 50 was scared of him since then
Someone stop this clown from embarrassing himself even more
I don’t know what’s worse, the fact that he doesn’t understand basic mathematical principles or the fact that so many people are willing to believe him just because he’s a celebrity and speaks with confidence. It’s sad that so many people can’t explain the SIMPLE reason why 1x1=1.
@@MichaelColeman-ho1bw Sigh….no problem.
Imagine you are sitting a room in between two tables. On the table to your left are a bunch of candles in the shape of the number 1. You have a bag with random numbers in it and a big red “X” on the outside of the bag. The table to the right of you is empty.
Your job is pull a random number out of the bag with the “X” on it. Whatever number it is, that’s how many “TIMES” you move a candle from the table on your left, to the empty table on the right. Then once you are done, you add up the sum of all the numbers on the table on the right to get your answer.
The first time you pull a “7” out of the bag. You move 7 candles from left to right. You add up all the numbers on the table on the right and you get “7”. Therefore 1x7=7.
You do this again and you pull out a number “1”. You move one candle from left to right. Then you add it up and get “1”. Therefore 1x1=1.
I broke it down in as simplistic a way as possible. I HOPE you can understand how it works and why Terrence Howard needs to just stick to acting and leave the math to his calculator.
@@MichaelColeman-ho1bwon 1x1? 1x1 is 1 because multiply does NOT mean to just "make more" in mathematics. It asks if you have a number a certain number of "times", what us the result. If you have 1 basket of 5 apples, you have 5 apples. So 5 times 1 is still ONE.
5 apples times 2 is 10. Because with 2 baskets you double the amount of one basket. If you eat 1 apple 1 time, you ate 1 apple. 1 times 1 is 1. If you eat 1 apple 3 different times (like for breakfast, lunch, and dinner), you ate 3 apples. 1 times 3 is 3. Its basic understanding of math, yet you have idiots who got famous for acting tricking other idiots into believing this crap. I can't believe this comment section.
Like dude this is sooo bad lol.. these comments.. idk if I want to laugh or cry at the lack of simple math 😢😂
Agree ... Mind is a terrible thing...not even to waste.... Just plain terrible with the idiots in this comment section. Shout-out to @gray_gogy... The real MVP.
@@gray_gogydumbass 5 times one is indeed not one it is indeed 5
Dude doesn't know what the "x" means. It means number of occurrences. a x 1 = a because a is occurring 1 time...
Your fundamentals are off
@@mindhunter8772he’s right dude. a•1/a x 1 is a.
@@mindhunter8772no bruh. You're off
@@SeanDeli You're fundamentally off
@mindhunter8772 no you're off.
The square root of any number when cubed will be equal to that number multiplied by its square root, e g
(√4)^3= 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 and
4 x √4= (2 x 2) x 2 = 8
Or
(√9)^3= 3 x 3 x 3 = 27 and
9 x (√9)= (3 x 3) x 3 = 27
You can do this with any number. Using a number that is not a perfect square like 2 doesn't make it any different, the principles will still apply and you will get the same answer when you plug it into this operation. Its basically the same thing expressed differently.
exactly
But wait, that doesn't make sense cause those are too different operations. Also, if you went thru the correct sequence and used perhaps my dear aunt Sally you wud see that shouldn't come about, but alas every calculator will show u that no matter what order u put it in it comes out with the same answer. This means that every calculator is wrong and the entire mathematical endeavour is flawed. Here's another example, how can I order 1 large order of fries and 2 McChickens but the total comes up to a whopping $20.74? It doesnt make any cents so I just leave with the food.
@@sdott9751@chappie3642 answered it in one of the previous comment, I am done for the day, it was fun:
"""the equation Is the explanation for why he got the "loop".
If you take √2 and cube It, you get √8 = √(2³) = 2√2.
If you take √2 and you multiply It by 2 you get 2√2.
This Is true because √2 Is a solution to x³=2x, meaning that if you take any x that satisfies x³=2x, then you cube x, you Will get exactly x multiplied by 2, and solving the equation gives the solutions 0, √2 and -√2.
In facts, try to do this:
Open up your calculator
Type -√2
Cube It
Then do the following
Reopen your calculator
Type -√2
Multiply It by 2
You Will see that It gives the same result as earlier.
There Is absolutely nothing that Is not understood in mathematics about this, and all of this stuff Is extremely basic when compared even to what High schoolers learn in their senior years.
"""
Simple algebra explains this:
It's easier to understand when you write a square root like this: (√x)=x^0.5
x*(√x) = x^1*x^0.5 = x^(1+0.5) = x^1.5
(√x)^3 = (x^0.5)^3 = x^(0,5*3) = x^1.5
What Terrence says highlights that math can be counterintuitive, but then concluding and publicly exclaiming that math is wrong tells you something about how deeply he really thinks about things.
Absolutely correct. The problem with Terrance’s explanation is that he tries to make an equation out of this that’s completely wrong then claims all math is wrong as a result. The equation he said at the end is x^3 = 2x. It’s a polynomial with a solvable value for x.
It can be rewritten as x^3 - 2x = 0 and solved with the quadratic equation.
So technically yes, x^3 = 2x if you first define x=root 2.
If you plug x^3 and 2x into a graphing calculator, they will intercept the x-axis at x=root 2. Therefore his equation isn’t a “mathematical fallacy.” He’s just dumb as fuck.
The equation "x^3=2x" is not a mathematical fallacy because it is a valid mathematical equation. It represents a cubic equation, and it can be solved to find the values of x that satisfy it. The solutions are x = 0, x = √2, and x = -√2, which are all real and valid solutions in the context of mathematics. Fallacies in mathematics typically involve logical errors or contradictions, and this equation does not exhibit such issues.
Terrance Howard seems to have no clue what he talks about tbh
I believe that those are irrational numbers (besides zero). So the very name tells you the problem with that concept. So no it is NOT logical smartass. It's just a CONCEPT used in mathematics.
I'd bet good money He'd bury you in any math competition.
Yeah he has no clue at all, people like him get lost in their own heads without feedback,If he's conclusions are true or were potentially helpful the mathematics community would know his name and he would've had a fields metal, realistically he wouldn't stand in a room with a REAL MATHEMATICIAN. If he's so smart why doesn't he solve the riemann hypothesis😂😂😂😂😂
@@sidvicious647 he doesn't even understand what multiplication is on a fundamental level. a * b is the summation of a, b times. so 1 x 1, is 1. 1 x 2 is 1 + 1 = 2.
@@aiooiaNow tell the other people in the comments
Alright, who wants to see a conversation between Neil deGrasse Tyson and Terrance Howard? It’s almost PPV worthy.
Why would Neil waste his time like that....c'mon. Howard's known as a running meme at this point, dudes insane.
Neil, Terrence, and Joe Rogan
Two idiots
@@ProvokenThought would be neil and joe trying to explain to terrence why he's an idiot... Are you in middle school or something?
@@seanowens3153he’s not an idiot though, the 1 times table is off. 1 person x 1 person in order to multiple would be a minimum of 3. It’s simple math. Multiplication is to increase, 2x2 would be a minimum of 6. It’s natural math
He HAS to be trolling!!!😂😂
You think so?
I have an idea and you have another idea. We give those ideas to each other. If it would be apples we would still have one apple each but because we so not use that math that lie we in reality have TWO ideas EACH. 😮
He makes total sense unless you are cancelling out multiplication all together.
@@filipzawadzki9424 Thats because you keep your idea and also get his. So you ADD his idea to yours. You dont multiply. If you both have one idea each you already have 2x1 idea. not 1x1
@@filipzawadzki9424You're adding, not multiplying. Think for yourself.
@@kenishahammond3935he does not… this is like 7/8th grade math. Cmon now guys
Bro failed 1x1 on math class and is working his ass off to invent a model where he is right 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I like the idea that he failed the easiest concept in math… 1
You know the crazy part? Mathematicians already beat him to it, there are already some weird number systems where 1×1=1, they're just not really useful, and they're definitly not what howard is talking about.
@@BuffaloSpiritGuideliterally lmao
Or simply that you've been indoctrinated like Columbus discovering America, Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, and Jesus looking like Brad Pitt
You can’t equate math with English. Multiply does mean ‘to make more of,’ but in math it is a simplified expression of the process. “One times one” = 1 unit in place, 1 time.. 1x4 = 1 unit in place, 4 times etc. I guess we could keep calling it the “times table”, but multiplication sounds cooler and accurately describes the process for every number except 1 and 0. Basically 🤷🏽♂️
I do admire his confidence and the thought he obviously put into this, though.
Want me to report you? Yes or no kid?
😂
You forgot about the equation which proves what hes claiming is true
Cap
I was looking for this comment....he's confusing 2 different principles.
That's why Terrence became an actor, not a mathematician, physicist, scientist... 😂😂😂 It's almost like you don't choose your career, your career chooses you, based on your talents
U do knw this man is actually smart as hell nd has a degree in chemical engineering
@@williepaul9785 so what? And at some point in life he became insane./mentally ill... This happens all the time. I actually feel sorry for him and think he needs help,
@@williepaul9785He only ever completed 3 semesters, he has no degree
@@user-wv1fc1mk3l the point is he still went for it which means he must have a passion for it who takes up something like that wit knw knowledge
@@williepaul9785there are plenty of people that “went for things” but that doesn’t make them smart or a genius 😂
This is a great example of how people draw poor, yet interesting, conclusions. Then it goes on the internet and other people who don’t understand the subject think it’s genius.
A basic 3rd grade math worksheet disproves his logic.
It’s sad really
Now i see why he didn't get the role as war machine. 😂
Ironman: Alright Rhodey, I need you to destroy that 1 building with 1 missle.
Rhodey: Destroy 3 buildings, got it!
Yup , the elites don't want him in the spotlight and teaching us the right way
Tony Stark actually got the idea how to build his core reactor from Terrance, not Howard Stark. Tony overheard Terrance speaking on the imbalance of some of the underlying quantum equations, and he suddenly realized the significance of element 113, which had not yet been manufactured and thought to be highly unstable.
@@_monolithic_LMAOO
@@jimscycleandautotn8508”elites don’t want me to know that I cant do basic arithmetic”
Say when you go to the store and buy something for a dollar, do you give the cashier two dollars and walk out the store? Use your brain (if you can LOL)
"That's why all your fundamentals are off " 😂😭😭😭😭. Nice ending
right , redo it for us so we can know...he broke down a fraction of the problem and left us with an insult ...but these goofy mfs only care about how "remembered the numbers" Any thing is amazing to people these days ...simple asses
He’s trying to make everyone forget about the shower scene in Get Rich Or Die Tryin’ 😂😂😂
🤣 Stop it
Nobody ever thinks of that but you.. you like that scene huh? 😏
Where he saved a life…….
@@hellawitzgerald7530 say what you want. Shit had me rolling. Everybody was at school the next day talking about it.
Could've gone a lot worse 💁🏽♂️
For those curious about the sqrt(2) example, it's not as peculiar as it might seem. In fact, this example can be generalized for any number using the formula:
x_n = 2^0.5 * (x/2)^(3^n/2)
This can be re-expressed using logarithms to base 2 as follows:
x_n = 2^(1/2 + (3^n)/2 * (log_2(x) - 1))
Using this formulation, we can analyze the behavior for different values of x.
Let's start with x = 2. Here, the exponent simplifies to 2^(1/2), which is indeed sqrt(2), as mentioned in the "loop" example 😅.
For x > 2, the term (log_2(x) - 1) is positive, and thus the exponent tends to infinity as n approaches infinity. Consequently, the entire series diverges since 2^y approaches infinity as y goes to infinity.
For x < 2, the term (log_2(x) - 1) is negative. Therefore, the second term in the exponent becomes negative, and for large n, the entire exponent trends towards negative infinity. As a result, the series converges to 0 since 2^y approaches 0 as y goes to negative infinity.
And please do not let me start with the discussion about 1*1=2
(Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard).
You didnt even have to discuss it at this length , dude just performed basically the same operation lmfao
√2X√2X√2 = 2X√2
man i feel so stupid even writing this😂😂 this dude doing drugs from some other planet
@@kunaldebbarma8086hahahah
Terrence Howard doesn't understand basic math is the moral of the story. The square root of any number then cubed will always equal the square root of the number multiplied by that number.
(√x)^3 = x√x because (√x)^3 = (√x)(√x)(√x) = x√x
It's not that crazy bro. Terrence Howard, as genius or talented he may be as an actor/performer, doesn't know basic "algae brah".
And idiots in the comments eating it all up
What the … people think he‘s spitting facts?? Get out a pencil and a paper and figure it out yourself, when in doubt, write it out, it’s not a tough puzzle at all
1×1 = 1 bag with 1 candy
2x2 = 2 bags with 2 candys in each
Etc
5x5 = 5 teams each with 5 members
Is he saying 1 bag with 1 candy is 2 items. 2 bags with 2 candy’s is 4 items. And 5 bags with 5 members is 10 things total. Is that why he is saying 1*1 is 2?
@@milkmarie5120Mann idk
@@milkmarie5120 This is the best way to describe what he's saying to the people who can't comprehend his viewpoint.
So then by your logic 1 x 2 = 3 😂
@@sabrina3297 well if that is his viewpoint then it is wrong. you are only supposed to count the things in the groups, not the groups
In the sqrt(2) cube equation, two of the square roots cancel each other out or sqrt(2) x sqrt(2) square equal (2)(sqrt(2)). Same as the other equation
I think it's more about practical application of the concept rather than the logic of math itself being flawed. We run into these conundrums when we multiply by 0 as well because while the sum always being 0 makes sense, the very act of multiplying implies the presence of something that can be replicated. Ergo, more of something. Not zero. Unless it's somehow "more" zero/nothing. I don't know. I don't do drugs so I'm not going to waste any time on that. The answer is 0. For my own sanity.
not all math is practical, some of it falls into the abstract until it can be used practically. That is why we have engineers. What he is doing is pushing a fallacy to those who may or may not be ignorant of math. I’m not against the man and his thought process but the lie he may or may not know he is pushing.
[Sqrt(2)]^3 = Sqrt(2)*2
Expand the left:
Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) = Sqrt(2)*2
Factor out the right:
Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) = Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)
The equation balances out. There is nothing “unnatural” about it. Dude just failed algebra. It just feels “unnatural” if your brain can only process integers for the equation x^3 = 2*x. How is he going to debunk math if he can’t even solve for x^3 = 2*x.
@@TitoMcFadden
Multiplication of x and y can be thought of intuitively as "each container has x objects, and there are y containers, how many objects are there?" If x = 0, then we can rephrase the question as " each container has no objects, and there are y containers" . In this case, no matter what the value of y is, there are still going to be 0 objects in total
@@dBakaj when u get to this part
Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) = Sqrt(2)*2
Factor out the right:
it would be
Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) = Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)
so no there is something not right
An action times an action equals ONE big ass action!
LMAO
😂 facts
Can’t wait to see a Terrence discover Addition
One, one time will always be one. "Times Tabel." Multiplication is the number "times" itself, not in addition to itself. If you place one item one "time" in the refrigerator, you don't open the door to multiples of the same item later.
That’s your own personal perspective. What if you put one gallon of milk in the fridge. To a tribal or primitive person they might see two items. The milk in which they can drink. And the container which they can use to store something in later.
@Speed_Racer. Deep...🤯 A truly "Mind blowing" concept. Touché, I do say indeed.
@@swhiteproductions1 just my perception my friend. But what do I know
To multiply to the best of my knowledge means to increase in number
So if I have multiple of one thing at a bare minimum I have 2 of said thing so to have one multiple of 1 thing is to have 2 therefore 1 x 1 is indeed 2
@@IsraeliteLife One, one "time" will always be one. 1+1=2.
I wish I could tell him 2x1 is also 2. It’s a man made formula and the default of multiplying a number by one means it doesn’t multiply. You could simply ignore the 1s but what happens when you have multiple scenarios in an equation with the same formula but one of them doesn’t multiply? You can’t skip the step. You multiple by 1. I tried to make sense of what he said but I can’t even understand what he’s thinking about it. Like starting a formula with the answer.
What is he talking about tho? mind you I’m no math wiz but tryna explain why 1x1 doesn’t equal 1 sounds lil suspect but hearing his recent stuff lately the guy seems like he’s on a mission for something and God bless him👍👍🏻👍🏼👍🏽👍🏾👍🏿
U proved his point. He just used 1×1, & you used 2×1. Dats his point, since they don't multiply, & by definition multiply means to increase in number, they're mathematical falsies. To his point, any two numbers dat don't increase in number wen multiplied are mathematical falsies.
@@onyeilonyeil9468he was a little off. It's just a language meant to represent reality.
If you have a pair of socks on the table, in math language you would denote that as 2(socks) x1. It's not a fallacu or false. It's just language. It's like arguing about the meaning of words... It's just language. It means nothing here.
It's like people arguing the earth is flat.
@@onyeilonyeil94682x 1 means there are two of something one time. It's just language
@@Joesire you are absolutely wrong with the sock analogy. i mean that was terrible.
For one to say:“The fact that the cube of a number equals 2 times that number, points out to fallacies in fundamental mathematical system”, is unreasonable really... Because this is just purely logically and mathematically true.
Because for there to be a number N such that:
N³=2N
=> N³ - 2N = 0
=> N ×(N² - 2)=0
hence: N=0 or N² -2= 0
=> N²= 2
:-) N= √2
Hence the only two numbers that satisfy this function are 0 and √2
Check: 0³=2×0=0
Also √2³= 2×√2= 2√2
Because√2³=√8=√4 ×√2= 2×√2=2√2
So I don't see any fallacy ...it's just a fact that different numbers can function in different functions which no other number can function...(all numbers are special:-);-)
Okay here's another number X such that
Y⁴=3Y....
and the only two numbers that satisfy this function are
0 and the cube root of 3.. no other numbers
Type of conversation i enjoy no lie.
What with and idiot?? Because he's an idiot.
Cuz ur a free thinker
That’s not being a free thinker, that’s just not understanding mathematics. That’s like making up words off the top of your head and being surprised that everybody else doesn’t know them…
@@CoolCat123450 Big facts!!!!! These dudes are idiots I'm tired of being nice
@@CoolCat123450 wheres my flying car genius!
Asking someone to give you one 5, you'll get 5.. one(1)x5. Ask someone to give you two 10s..youll get two(2)x10s.. something times one is just itself
This is a perfect way to explain it to someone who doesn’t understand (for example: Terrence Howard)
I would love to see him go on one of these recorded interviews/podcasts, and another person pull out some bills and walk him through that like he’s 5 years old. “Okay now please hand me ONE, ONE dollar bill. That’s 1x1. Now how much money do I have? That’s right. Just one dollar.” lol
That is how you were explained the concept of multiplication in grade school and it sounds logical until you actually multiply.
1 thing multiplied cannot remain 1, if it does then it has not been multiplied.
Yes I know one thing one time I was also in grade school but the challenging idea is that there is something fundamentally wrong when logic is applied.
If I put a rock in an aquarium and then it becomes 2 I could say that rock just multiplied itself, and you might ask how many times did it multiply?
I look and see two and say it multiplied one time not two times ya dig?
@@IsraeliteLife 🤦🏻♂️ In multiplication, the number 1 is called the multiplicative identity because any number multiplied by 1 remains unchanged. When you multiply any number by 1, the product is always the original number.
So, 1×11×1 equals 1 because the multiplication of 1 by itself, or any number by 1, is defined to be the number itself. It's a fundamental property of multiplication, and the number 1 serves as the identity element for multiplication.
@@RocsMacho1 bruh.... I know what you were taught.
But multiplication is the equivalent of increase and if something does not increase then it has not multiplied.
All that accurate so far
Therefore 1 multiplied 1 time cannot be 1 because you have failed to multiply.
I don't care what you were taught, does the previous sentence make logical sense.
Your answer should be yes yes it does and moving forward what needs to be done is clarification of the application of the term multiplication
@@IsraeliteLife You are using the textbook definition of multiply that means to increase and trying to force that into algebra. Multiplication in math has been used by ancient Egyptians, Greeks & more. For thousands of years... and here we have some real geniuses who think they discovered some new concept and how everyone else is wrong 🤦🏻♂️
The exact same people who didn't pay ANY attention in math class because it wasnt "cool" but instead decided to become experts at listening to rap music, are now in here calling an actor a math genius because he said something that sounded cool to them just because it goes against what is already established.
Apparently nobody ever explained to him that words have multiple definitions or that language is inherently limiting to describe reality.
Those multiple meanings are subjective within individual aptitudes. which leads to.
Complications
When claiming absolutions in relative equations.that are used to vaguely justify our reality. Our reality has to be explained using some form of media Here the media is language itself. The Letters and number icons are situated as codes for justification of our reality As part of the communication spectrum
That's why so called scientists can't figure it out because they talk with a fork tung . And the great mr Howard can explain it so that a 9 year old can interpret the truth . If 1 times 0 = 0 where did the 1 go . Ok let's plug it into reality let me borrow $1 and I'll pay you back $0 and let's call it even .
Doesn't change that his mathematical demonstration raises a good question.
@@thermologo3451what question then? It's pretty clear to me that he is wrong
What "good" question is that? This discussion is based off the false premise that the word "multiply" only means one thing. A false premise will generally lead to a false conclusion. All you have to do is use a synonym to explain the word "multiply" in terms of mathematics. For instance, the word "multiply" can be explained as "sets of." You can perform similar pseudo-intellectual verbal gymnastics with the words "equal" and "divide" when discussing mathematical language. @@thermologo3451
He's treating language as if it were maths and maths as if it were language.
Highly intelligent!! And I notice alot of people are willing to dismiss the obvious because it does not coincide with the narrative we've been trained to adopt. Terrance Howard is a Genius and a Scholar
It's not a narrative, it's scientific method. It's objective and apolitical.
Terrence's Agent: I support you 100 percent.
Terrence Howard: You fired then.
Agent: Why?
TH: Because those zeros have no value. How can you possibly support me zero twice and then one more time?
Agent: So you owe me 11 percent then?
TH: Exactly! Now cube it.
Hahahaha I'm literally lol
🤣
1 multiple by any number reflects back the number projected it’s like looking in a mirror and seeing yourself. (2 x 1 = 2, 3 x 1 = 3 therefore 1 x 1 = 1) 1 can only reflect what it sees or what was projected. Therefore it’s impossible for 1 to reflect as 3 if 3 was never the number projected in the mirror ( Mirror meaning the number 1)
So if your employer told you that your check would be multiplied once yearly would you not be upset to see no increase on your check after a years work, would you not feel deceived?
Well, first of all I have several companies. I don’t have an employer. Second if I was working for an employer and I wanted a raise I would make myself extremely valuable to the company where I could command how much I get pay. If that doesn’t work you move on.
@@jayphillips1011 fair then I will be more straightforward:
a. I would love to hear more about you businesses maybe we could collaborate on something.
b. If you have one thing and multiply it zero times you still have one thing. If you have zero things and you multiply it one time you still have zero.
0•1=0 but 1•0=1
1•2=3 yet 2•1=4
If you have one thing and it multiplies itself one time you now have two of that thing and if that one thing multiplied itself twice you now have 3, hence 1•2=3 however if you have two of something and it multiplies one time you will have a total of four therefore 2•1=4 and we are introduced to an idea that the fundamentals of mathematics is illogical or it could be argued that language is flawed.
Either way this is not a subject that should be trashed simply because we have been trained to memorize a multiplication table.
You're looking at it only as if you are the number one. What if it's being observed while it looks in the mirror. Then I would see 2 of you. But that the number reflected and the number. But then you step back and see the number in the equation that would be the third number one. So the original #1. The reflected #2 and the reflection of the #1.
"I will replace your brain with a sega genesis mann"
🍎 × 🍎 =🍎🍎
@@NewaccountNumber no. that's addition.
@@BiggestMarph Repeated addition is also known as multiplication. This is because both the methods, although different, give the same answer. For example, if 3 is repeated four times we can either solve it as 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12 OR we can solve it as 4 times 3 = 4 ✕ 3 = 12.
@@NewaccountNumber 🍎x 🍎= 🍍
@@RyszardOchodzki-bs6vb Who told you that?
One times one equals one because the equation submits to say how many times is there one there? One time. If there is only one multiple there, then there is only that number there. What he did was apply the word multiply to mean multiples are being created. But that isnt what is happening. What is happening is multiples are being counted. So something times one is always that single something.
Ok your saying 1×0=0
Let me borrow a $100 and I'll pay you back 0 and call it even if you want my cas app let's do it ? Because 100 ×0 =0 according to the formula wen I pay you back 0 it's correct for me to keep the $100 because you never gave me anything. And according to the formula that you believe in if I take you to court with that logic I'll defently win the suit . Unless you change the formula to reflect that 100+ -100 is 0 which means I paid you back and the debt is canceled
Or you say 100×0=100 which is correct because it would represent that I paid you 0 and still owe you 100. Mind f%$k 101 this is how to steal legally . If you belive it to be true that 100×0=0 lend me 100. I'll pay you back 0 and we call it even.
@boomclash101 you OBVIOUSLY didn't read what I said. You are interpreting the question wrong. The question is how many multiples of 100 is there if there are zero multiples? The answer is zero. If there are zero multiples then there would be no hundreds there. That whole tangent you went on had zero multiples of what I said included in it. So you were talking non-sense.
What Terrance is saying is that it only works conceptually. In nature there would never be a time where you would multiply something by itself. And even if you did nothing is an exact copy of itself from one moment to the next. It's a trivial point, he just makes it sound compelling.
@@boomclash101you brilliantly succeeded in proving your complete lack of understanding of not only basic math, but also of the english language... good job 👏 👍
@smilyle Yes, there wouldn't be a time where you would multiply something by itself. But that is and was never the question. The way the question is posed in a class setting for instance, is not the question being asked I'm reality. This is why with that aspect he is wrong. A bunch of other things he is right on. For instance, in a class setting, the teacher may ask, "what is one times one?" This would make you think an action is being done to CREATE something. But from a mathematicians perspective, that isn't what the question is REALLY asking. The question is asking about what already is, not what is to become. "If on a table there are four groups, and in each group there are four seeds in it. How many seeds are there on the table?" That is what multiplication is used for. So the equation would be 4 X 4 = 16. Four multiples of four is 16.
This is what is wrong with the school system. They don't even teach the understandings in basic math and what the point is for. If they taught that people would be better off in life. But they don't want that. They want everyone to be dumb and reliant on other people. Such is our current state and culture, I guess.
It’s easily proven in math why the answer is the same for both processes
2x=x+x=x^3
2x=x+x is obviously correct since 2x means 2 groups of x or x+x
x^3=2x, lets solve for x
x^3/x=2
x^2=2
x=±√2
this means that IF x=√2, the equation is satisfied. He just used a value for x when the equation is satisfied.
0 also satisfies it
This is misleading, 1 × 1 definitely = 1.
However if you listen carefully to what he says, he's actually saying is 1.4142135628 x 1.4142135628 = 2 which is correct.
@@derekmix1738 are you saying what i said was misleading?
It's a clever trick but it's the same equation basically. Once you have the square of 2 , 1.414213....... and cube it meaning 1.414213.....x 1?414213... You get 2, then multiply that by 1.414213.... you get that 2.82.......number. it's not a fallacy it's the correct answer because it's the same equation .
@@ramfanbland I'm not sure if your agreeing with me or not, so I'm just gonna break down everything wrong with your message.
also, for this message, assume that 1.414 means the sqrt(2)
2x and x^3 are not the same equation (I'll prove it later by contradiction)
the square of 2 is 4 not 1.414, the square root of 2 is 1.414
cube does not mean 1.414213x1.414213, cube means 1.414213x1.414213x1.414213 or 2x1.414
sqrt(2)^3 is not equal to 2, its equal to 2sqrt(2)
its not the correct answer because its the same equation, it is the correct answer because it satisfies the equation. If it was the same equation it would be true for all x∈R, so
2x=x^3
for the sake of contradiction, let x = 2 (since you said it was the same equation, so it should hold)
2x2 = 2^3
2x2=2x2x2
4=8
thus we have reached a contradiction, so our initial assumption was wrong, they are not the same QED.
Loop easily explained:
In theory, if you were dealing with exact mathematical operations and infinite precision, you wouldn't expect this kind of repeating cycle. However, the cycle you're observing is a result of the limitations of representing real numbers in a computer's finite precision.
When you perform calculations with decimal numbers in a computer, there's a limit to the precision of those numbers. As you repeatedly perform operations like cubing and dividing, small errors accumulate, leading to the appearance of a cycle. The limitations of floating-point arithmetic in computers can introduce rounding errors, and those errors can create patterns or cycles in certain mathematical operations.
In the idealized realm of pure mathematics, such a cycle might not occur, but the practical constraints of computing introduce these nuances. It's a fascinating aspect of numerical computation and precision limitations.
You just wasted your time in explaining this to a retarted group of people and channel creator. Terrance Howard is a genius for these people. I swear an asteroid heading towards Earth does not sound bad right now. We really need a do over.
Laughable explanation
BEST Comment. Made the most sense, no more than a fun-fact/trick to show people that aren't aware
no, its not floating point, it can be proved algebraically
We need a Hustle and Flow sequel
This is embarrassing, 1 lot of 1 is 1. This is so simple it doesn't need explaining.
Met him as a kid in 01 playing basketball in burbank @ the YMCA before he became known.. as a kid i remember thinkin how humble dood was. Hes an actor and showed up in a 1985 red nissan sentra
Wow that's some real G shit tho
I had a Sentra 🤣 5 speed 🔥
@@ProvokenThought
Me too 1987 4 door red 5 speed …. Taught all my friends to drive a stick in 2 months… my bff got same car only 2 door a year later in 1989❤
Miss my car😊
It's actually a pretty simple trick T.Howard did there, when you square a number that's not a perfect square, it will round off the numbers to the nearest whole number, but it won't be accurate, that's why his math doesn't add up
So the calculator is wrong?
His “math” isn’t wrong. He’s displaying reason. You and the fifteen ppl who liked your post are wrong. The programming in the calculator is wrong.
@@VillainArch22he doesn’t know that something cubed is multiplying the square value by the original number. For example 2 is the square root of 4. 2x4=8 2 cubed is also 8.
Stop saying its wrong and prove your work.. isn’t that what math is… prove a point with evidence
@@vixen_0072what I understand is that 2 different routes made the same answer and according to “math” as we know it( taught in schools) say we could not
The x in the equation means how many times the number is occurring.
1x1 means 1 is occurring 1 time. That's why the equations are reversible
1x2 means 1 occurring 2 times or 2 occurring 1 time
Same with 0
This is a very deep subject, very well explained in a very short amount of time. I had no idea Terrance Howard was onto the truth so deeply. No wonder he isn't cast in more Hollywood "make you believe" films. He is dangerous to the establishment.
He also wanted more money
It's not a deep subject. It's simple algebra. You are just as bad at math as him
@@brian1436 this guy proved the principle "opposites attract" wrong.
Because apparently Dunning-Kruger-people attract more Dunning-Kruger-people LOL
@brian1436 your a fool because what he just discussed demonstrates that if you accept it, that 1x1 does not equal 1, but rather 1x1=2. If you watch any of his other lectures beyond the 60 seconds on this short video you will learn he actually patented the statement and information being discussed and he is calling for an audit of our foundational mathematical principal models we use in physics because it's incorrect. So, no. You are completely wrong. But thank you for attempting to remind me of my own stupidity. Again, you are mistaken by your own level of ignorance. Good day.
@@LordCLecter idk what this is about but all you have to do is know that √2 • √2 = 2. A square root is the opposite of squaring. So if you square a square root you get the number itself. That is why √2^3 = √2 • 2. Doofuses
That’s straight up lost . Poor guy has lost his mind
You just sound like that guy who believes all the lies they shove down your throat.
@@MuretechSystems-wh6qp you sound like you are 9 years old
Just so you understand this, an action times an action is an action squared. Not an action times 1. Simple multiplication is taking an object and multipliying it by the amount of times it occurs, not by multiplying it by itself. He's applying really high level thinking to a problem that doesnt exist.
Multiplication in mathematics is defined as:
the process of combining matrices, vectors, or other quantities under specific rules to obtain their product.
He is conflating a non math definition with math itself.
He is actually right u havent got the power to see it u r the brain which is occasionally wrong he is the wisdom that is or never was wrong
@@martinturner5766 that's a lot of words to say you have no idea what you are talking about.
He is wrong, and you can be wrong with him. Blindly believing some entertainers semi lucid ramblings is not a virtue and is not wisdom.
Does the truth scare u
Where did you study
@@martinturner5766 No, your glaring ignorance and overwhelmingly unjustified confidence does though.
I spent 18 months in the Navy's nuclear power program, and after a decade in Nuclear power got out and studied Data Science at George Mason University.
Where did you study?
"a times b can't equal a"
But his example is a times a
Because another "a" represents the same as the 1st "a" so that u have two of the same "1st one"
@@youllbeallrighti6795a is not a mathematical unit
If you let x=0 you get: 0^3=2*0 which in turn gives 0=0
If you let x=2^(1/2), an other way of writing root of 2, you get: left 2^3/2=2^(1/2+2/2)=2^1/2*2^2/2= 2*2^1/2
Which is exactly what you have in the right side.
This is all basic arithmetic’s, it’s not up for discussion. You can define other ways to do math which are totally fine, it doesn’t make this way “wrong”.
For example, 1+1 is not always equal to 2, in fact 1+1=0 (mod 2)
Or converting between your digital and regular watch, you are in mod 12, that is 13:00 is the same as 1, but so is 1:00.
*suddenly splits into three people*
Oh shit, he was right!
This how my math teachers should been
Uneducated?
@@Joeyjjjrshabadoo fun and making it interesting but why are you so negative? Hope you ok
Bruh, your math teachers probably forgot more math than Terrence has learned. This is Terryology.
@@j.baldwin3012 you see how he's so into math ? That's what I'm talking about not if it's right or not but how do you know
@coolg6463 There are tons of nuances within math that can make someone seem like a math wiz. There are tons of books on mental math. I seriously doubt that he sits around doing high-level math for fun.
Clearly ladies and gentlemen education is not the key to success, Terrance Howard is living pretty without it.
He's making millions without understanding the most basic arithmetic, whilst some of us are making thousands with stochastic calculus.
EDIT: I know this is a sample size of 1, but you get it.
Is the title supposed to say “Terrence Howard on Math” or “Meth” 🤷♂️
I was doing the same concept in grade school and my teacher sent me to special education
The “reaction” is the fact that 1 set of 1 is still 1. Terry has “pridefully unorthodoxed” himself into insanity. 😂. He is like a walking talking version of the episode of the Office where Michael Scott tries to help the kid with homework.
Bro my prospective of him just completely changed. Like him even more now
You mean "perspective", meaning one's point of view.
Lol. You must be slow and easily influenced. He’s spewing bs
I used to frustrate my elementary math teachers when I would do 0 x A = A and then ask them to show me how they get 0 but prove it using real things 😂 same thing with 1 x a 😂😂😂
Oh that's simple, what would A be , name it using something real?
If you have zero groups of 2 apples or 2 groups of zero apples you still have 0.
@@trowabarton101 And that is all there is to that
@@trowabarton101. I agree with that. I do have a question though because in multiplication using numerals, expressions written in reverse provide the same product. So if 2*0=0 then 0*2=0.
Getting back to the scenario you provided, how would that expression work in reverse. If you had 2 apples multiplied in 0 groups, how do we logically get to 0? Why do the 2 apples disappear when multiplied against the 0 in the material world?
@@ameseginalehu_imaginations they don't disappear, when you ask what 2 apples times zero is in the real world is the same as asking what happens when you take 2 apples and not do anything to them. Zero is not a value it's a representation of nothing, it's the lack of value that makes zero-zero. So if make zero groups of two (two of anything apples, pears, etc) I have no groups because I don't make groups in the first place. By default if you have 2 apples you have 1 group of 2 apples or 2 groups of 1 apple. You can't multiply by zero in "the material world" for the same reason you can't add zero, take away zero or divide by zero because it's the same as adding "nothing" to your equation- your answer would be undefined (because it's impossible to do. )
With maths proficiency like that... America is doomed. The whole world is laughing at you!
If 3x1=3 and 2x1=2, what does 1x1=?
I would say one because I was taught so, but Terrence would say anything multiply by 1 isn’t multiplying. The answer stays the same. So 1 in multiplication shouldn’t exist 🤷🏼♀️because it defeats the purpose of making a number to multiply 🤷🏼♀️
@@ibelieveinmedoyoubelievein7257 Thank you
His problem is that he didn’t start with the correct definition of the identity property of 1 which states any real number multiplied by 1 equals itself. That can be proven too and for him to disprove that he must write a formal proof with no contradictions. Math is actually so complicated that even the basics we learn in grade school can require much higher mathematics to prove. I learned that after getting 2 math degrees and didn’t like math all that much after that.
@@GETURHANDSUP916 Thanks for the explanation. :)
@@ibelieveinmedoyoubelievein7257 It basically doesn't exist. People don't write "1 times" in equations at all because it is redundant. 1 * 1 = 1 when simplified is just 1 = 1, because there is no point in writing that multiplication out
I applaud Terrence Howard. Critical thinking is not for everyone.
Anyone that says Terrence is a "genius" .....
Math Genius,Great Artist/Actor= Alien 👽
Love how he used 2 to explain why 1x1 doesn’t equal 1.
It’s really simple if you just pay attention to what multiply means
So if you multiply 1 and 1 that means that you have 1 OF 1 that means you got 1. If you have 1 OF 2 or 2 OF 1 you get 2. It doesn’t have to be this hard Terrence Howard. Just replace the multiplication sign with of.
It's even simplier than dat.if I multiply 1 one time then the answer is 2.We simply multiply the whole number once.
@@youllbeallrighti6795i mean not really you just used the definition thats being explained
@@db5094 That's the whole point: Multiply as in the the action,should carry the same universal definition across the board.Just because a trickster from whatever year, decided to say "multiply in math doesn't meant to actually multiply the amount u have", that doesn't mean I or u or anybody else has to follow wat that idiot said.
I find it beyond strange that this word & action supposedly means the contrary when we are dealing with numbers.I pointed out several things here in the comments & I see certain things Ive said has been deleted but I say again, Terrance isn't the only one that knows we have all been lied to. I say again,those who control this world knows 1 multiplied one time is actually 2.
@@youllbeallrighti6795
"Multiply as in the the action,should carry the same universal definition across the board"
- Why? Bark has two differnt meanings (dog noise and tree skin)
- Also, the first definition on google is the mathematical sense "obtain from (a number) another which contains the first number a specified number of times."
"multiply in math doesn't meant to actually multiply the amount u have"
- Who is saying this? multiply has 2 meanings, one meaning is: a*b means a groups of b. The other meaning is: increase.
- The meaning in math is the following: a*b means a groups of b
"I find it beyond strange that this word & action supposedly means the contrary when we are dealing with numbers"
- if you use multiply as increase in your daily life, then the contrary would be to decrease, not stay the same.
- Also, there are 2 definitions for multiply
"Terrance isn't the only one that knows we have all been lied to"
- Who is lying to us? what do they want? why are they lying to us? how does math still work despite them lying to us? can you provide me your mathematical definition for multiply and we can check if it makes sense in the real world.
"1 multiplied one time is actually 2"
- answer this question then: if you buy one(1) box, which contains one(1) rock in it, how many total rocks do you have? The answer is found by multiplying the numbers together.
Just say you don’t know the difference between multiplication and addition and call it a day.
Soo
2•√2 = √2•√2•√2
2 = √2•√2
…….. what’s the issue? It works with any number… obviously 😂 The fundamentals of algebra are perfectly fine thanks Terrance.
Bruh so many comments are embarrassing I can't believe how few people understand this
If reality is energy and individual life is perception of that energy, Each life living a unique experience relative to that energy... everyone is right while also being wrong...
Boom
This ties in with the Mandela effect . Some people remember there heart on the left side (it’s in the middle now look at “heart location pictures” on google ), some remember stouffers stove top stuffing but it doesn’t exist it’s always been Kraft brand , some remember there being an ice cap on the top and the bottom of the globe but now North Pole is water no land mass is there , some people remember the rock saying “ can you smell what the rock is cooking “ but he never said that in this reality it’s always been “ IF YOU smell what the rock is cooking “ some people remember that way but if some of these Mandela effects don’t wake you up from this world than there’s many others out there online
Wait until he finds out 100 + 100 = 200 and 600 - 400 = 200 he’s going to lose his shit!
Tangential Math.
I just learned a new category. 🤓
Because multiplication deals with sets. 1 set of 1 is one. 1 set of 2 is 2.
I explain it like a box of action figures to my 8 yo son so he understands the concept if what's he doing. If it's one box of action figure with one action figure, it's still just one. If there's 1 box of action figure with two action figures, it's two action figures in 1 box.
Exactly. Sets is exactly right.
If the fundamentals of math are inherently flawed, how do you explain all the modern technologies that we enjoy based on those maths?
This certainly has sparked a conversation. I do not know if he is correct or not, but I am not going to call him crazy either. He has spoken at MIT and Oxford, so he must be fairly smart. I just like the conversations it has sparked and made people think. This is needed in today's climate.
He is an extremely brilliant guy all facts 💯
He’s right n it’s scary numbers lie
He's not right! I don't know if he's a con man or crazy, but I know he's wrong.😅 probability events are not the same as the multiplier identity (1) x 1=1. Don't be gaslighted. 💕🖖
I’ve always wondered why 1x1 equals 1. When it’s times. I just figured they knew what they were doing🤣😂
@@dakmycat3688 *They do know what they're doing. You should Google why 1x1=1. But in short, 1 when multiplying is a multiple identifer, so when times any number = that number. Same with 1/1=1. Terrance is confusing action x action which is probabilty. Ex. What's the odds of 2 coins flipping heads or tails? Each flip is a seperate event. a/b x a/b = a/b. This is not the same as 1x1=1. I hope this helps. 💕🖖
1 x 1 is still 1. Don’t believe the hype! And don’t allow others to trip you up with words. With these tactics, having a command of the English language is paramount; because in order to stress what you are saying & to explain what you are saying, you will need to choose your words wisely. Multiplying is not adding; adding is adding. Multiplying is multiplying😆. It’s taking a group of sets of numbers & combining them & then summing them up to a grand total. If ever you are in doubt of what you heard, repeat it, hopefully word for word, back to the sender, for confirmation. Do this: 1. To make sure you heard correctly & 2. To allow you more time to process what was said……………………😏
"Good morning."
Terrence: "Go to you calculator app and press 2."
Haha
Initially, I thought 1x1=2, but 1+1=2. It’s 1 times itself, which is 1, that’s what my second-grade teacher told me. Then again, Terrace is an ACTOR!
🤷🏽♀️
Terrence will always have my respect first and foremost for having the integrity to walk away from the Hollywoodland cesspool.
Really? Youean walked away after becoming a millionaire and no longer needing to act because most likely he invested his money carefully and is now living comfortably off his royalties and investments. Not to hard to walk away. Chamillionaire walked away from rap after a huge hit and become dumb rich.
unless he tells us he walked away because it was a “cesspool” then you’re just drawing your own conclusion.
Middle school level algebra here we go:
2x = x^3
Divide by x on both side to get:
2 = x^2
Take the square root of both sides:
X = sqrt(2), the exact number he used for the example.
This means this is not a fallacy. It would have been an error in math (more likely the calculator) if one of the solutions to this problem wasn’t sqrt(2). He literally proved himself wrong. Unbelievably stupid
you have to wonder how he ended with this x3 = 2x = x+x
@@ieaiaioinc.5258 it’s especially funny because 2x = x+x by definition lol. That equation is universally true, it works for all numbers, not even just sqrt(2)
I liked how he explained the flower of life … just brilliant 👌🏽🇬🇲
The flower of Life is Jesus Christ we Colossians 1 without Jesus Christ there is no meth there is no life there is no light at the end of the tunnel there is no knowledge without Jesus Christ there is no air to breathe without Jesus
Read the Kybalion and you’ll understand exactly what Terence is talking about.
For anyone is curious to see why he is wrong:
Simply put x^3=2x=x+x is not a weird equation in any way. Its a bit strange to have three equal signs, but the second and third statement are completely equivalent. Its the same thing as x^3=2x which is a perfectly normal cubic equation like any other. It has a solution, which in this case is squareroot(2)*2.
If you know the fractional exponent rule you can show
sqrt(2)*2 = 2^(1/2)*2^1
And by the product rule for exponents:
2^(1/2)*2^1=2^((1/2)+1)=2^(3/2)
Which by the fractional exponent rule again yields:
Sqrt(2)^3.
Tldr he had them both calculate sqrt(2)*2 in different ways and then pretended that it was weird that they were the same answer. Terence howard knows less than the average 9th grader.
This is nothing mystical or conspiratorial, it’s because numbers in a calculator are not stored or represented properly, as whole numbers (integers) or fractions (rational numbers), but as floating-point numbers with limited precision (limited number of decimal points). It’s not that someone “deliberately” did this to deceive anyone, it’s due to the limits of memory, how much space do you have to store the values you work with (I.e. how many decimal points can you store before you have to start rounding up, e.g. 1/3 on a calculator will either be truncated to 1.333333333 or rounded up to 1.33333334, because that’s how the number is stored, so on a calculator, (1/3=1.3333333)*3=9.99999999 when we know 1/3 * 3 is actually 1. It’s not a conspiracy, Terrence, I agree it’s stupid, floating-point numbers are an abomination but they are ‘close enough’ for a simple calculator.
Good point but it's deeper that just a calculator it's like in quantum physics no matter how they do the math they can't explain it it's because the math is wrong to begin with . The couldn't explain quantum entanglement hear is the start . Phi pie and si lol 😆. But 1×1 does equal 2 . But not a perfect 2 or a perfect 1 it's always slightly off in search of perfection it gets closer and closer to perfection at every advancement seems ima have to realern multiplication
It has nothing to do with floating point precision. Square root of two is irrational anyway and if you work it out symbolically it still resolves itself. x^3 = 2*x, x^3 / x = 2, x^2 = 2, x = sqrt(2). I don't even know what he's trying to say in this video other than multiplication with fractions/decimals doesn't match his intuition based on multiplication with whole numbers. It shouldn't, because there's fractions involved which is division.
@@twisted.mentat757 @twisted.mentat757 I think he said that 1×1=2 and not 1 . And the facts that when you do the calculation in multiplication the number is not multiplied instead it stays the same the identity property. Is an error because to multiply is to increase. We've been duped . Like fractional reserved banking where 1 =10 the math shows how its possible. Close your mind and listen carefully then reply again because I'm sure someone like you can work out the math and the math will reveal the answer. 1 +0 =1 so 1 ×0 =1 not zero because multiplication is just addition .
@@boomclash101 Multiplication IS just addition represented another way. So for x * y, you make a consecutive sum of x carried out y times. Or vice versa because of the commutative property. So 1 x 0 = 0 (sum of one zero times), 1 x 1 = 1 (sum of one one time), 1 x 2 = 1 + 1 (sum of one two times), etc. If I say I'm going to give you one dollar zero times, you're not getting the dollar. If I say I'm going to give you one dollar one time, you're getting one dollar. Etc. So given this definition 1 * 0 does not equal 1 and 1 * 1 does not equal two. Yeah the numbers do not technically multiply when multiplied by 0 or 1. So why change the definition to make it not logical? If I say I'm going to give you a dollar zero times suddenly you get the dollar? Makes no sense.
@@boomclash101 The math doesn't need to explain quantum entanglement, are you are oxygen-deprived? Multiplication as defined on the real numbers have NOTHING to do with quantum entanglement, and makes no claim about quantum states at all. Before I waste my time and we go any further, I need you to prove that you have some minimal understanding of algebra: define what the difference between a ring and a field is in your own words without having to look it up/google it. What about multiplication on integers, is that well-defined? If no, are there any cases where it is defined and complete? What's the common symbolic representation of the additive identity?
We have entered the age of either the unknown or the age of realisation
or the age of people thinking they know more than they do… in other words, people behaving like children.
@@jliverman Its the age of grifting and misinformation. The Golden Era of scamming and fraud.
To all software developers, i know the pain and cringe you guys feel when he fails to comprehend what float precision is and how it is limited in electronic devices.
This video hits different around 3 or 4am🤔🧠
No it doesn’t… 🤦🏽♂️
i guess you’re smoked out at 3 or 4am? this $hit don’t hit AT ALL. it’s dumb.
That’s why we can’t figure out how they built the pyramid…
All of our fundemtals are off
Pretty much. Enoch built it with frequency.
Makes sense. They just had to get one stone and then they would magically have 2 because 1x1=2.
This is embarrassing to watch, he has convinced himself he's a mathmatician and got 1x1 wrong, and even after having the answer told to him he doubles and triples down on his wrong conclusions.
Terrence it's not an action times an action,it's only one action, you have one multiplier times one object. Multiplication simply put is fast addition.
It’s not even an action at all, it’s much more defined and general concept than this, but as far as multiplication defined on real numbers like in the common arithmetic to get an answer, then yeah, it’s like factors of addition.
@@benisroodhmmm interesting. Multiply is a verb.
fast addition when adding one to one gives me two.
@@nhdproduction Saying 4x4 is saying ,4+4+4+4. Saying 2x21 is saying 21+21. Saying 1+1 is saying 2x1.
@@ramfanblandyou just perpetuated the flaw again. simply put it can't be the act of multiplying if the number stays the same is what he is basically saying. 1 multiplied by 1 doesn't acutally add nor do the act of multiplying just repeats don't care how you try to use different equations. I'm not saying i agree nor disagree with what he is getting at but to that point i see what point he is trying to convey
He made it confusing by using the square root of 2. It would have been much cleaner with a perfect square.
By definition, for any number x:
x cubed equals x squared times x
You’re just multiplying the square root by the square (radicand) giving you the cube
But he wanted the chance to show off that he can memorize 9 digits to sound like he knows what he's talking about.
♦️ in math, multiply doesn't require an increase in quantity...but I understand why he's questioning it...
♦️ also, the equations he mentioned are not fallacies... because they are valid equations with valid solutions.... again, I understand why he's questioning it ---- it's because of how unusual it seems to make operations on a number and get back the same number...
♦️ sometimes...it's still good to question it...even if it seems fundamentally true ...
Is this recent? I watched his "talk" at that college a few years back and couldn't stop laughing but I figured he would eventually talk to a mathematician and get himself sorted out but I guess that never happened
Ok how is he wrong, elaborate champ
@@smokedoubt1262 if you need that explained to you champ I suggest you repeat the 2nd grade...
The easiest way to spot an unintelligent person is when they immediately dismiss something because it opposes what they were taught in the institutional public school system 😂
@@MarcusTheDarkness an even easier way is when someone beautifully illustrates the dunning Kruger effect by leaving a comment in a public forum. Well done! To be clear, the concept of multiplication while differing in execution has remained conceptually the same since its first recorded occurrences in summerian and Egyptian texts. (It's also taught in private schools too lol ) Simply put because both you and Terrance Howard obviously don't gasp it would be that multiplication is the number of iterations of something. One with one iteration is was and always will be one. Even simpler 7 counted only one time is 7... It's not 14..
Again thanks for the comment and your textbook DK example 💯
@@4everseekingwisdom690 when did I say I agree with Terrence Howard? I don’t have to agree with him to point out your foolishness.
This whole convo went over my head. Easier to just say yeah, he’s right
He’s super wrong though.
This dude has no idea what he is talking about or how exponents work. I have a Masters in Mechanical engineering, here's what he told the two guys to do:
Guy 1: (2^(1/2)×2×1/2)^3=
(2^(1/2)×2^1×2^(-1))^3=
(2^(3/2)×2^(-1))^3=
(2^(1/2))^3=
2^(3/2)
Guy 2: ((2^(1/2))^3×1/2)^3=
(2^(3/2)×2^(-1))^3=
(2^(1/2))^3=
2^(3/2)
So yeah the results are the same if you just know simple rules of how exponents work. He acts like this is some crazy thing, it's not. He literally only proved that square root of 2 raised to the third is equal to itself. He needs to lay off the weed.
The fact that this makes so much sense is crazy
Bro it's wrong though... one one time is one... his definition of multiply is wrong and he's wrong about pretty much everything else he said too
@@s-ense8971 so define multiply and tell me what the square root of 2 is then ….. I’ll wait lol
Both u niggas be makin shit more complicated so the system sums it up 😂😂 simple explanation here: 1 times 1 is 1 because if you take 1 apple 🍎 1 time 🕜 and check how many apples you have... you got 1 😊😮😂😂😂 1x1=1! 1 times 2 is 2 because if you take 1 apple 🍎 2 times 🕑 and check how many you have... you got 2 🎉🤣🤣🤣
You actually think, in math, multiply means to increase ? Just look it up man. Don’t be a dummy
@@thakurv1 google is free bro it literally says to increase 🤡
Think of 1 x 1 like this: Imagine you have 1 box of crayons, and each box has only 1 crayon inside. Now, if someone asks you how many crayons you have in total, you just have that 1 crayon from your 1 box. So, 1 box times 1 crayon in each box equals 1 crayon in total. It's just a simple way of saying you're not really adding anything extra, you're just sticking with what you already have - which is 1 crayon.
The definition is wrong
Multiplication is a mathematical operation that involves adding a number to itself a certain number of times.
Listen Terrance, calm down multiplication is not a fundamental law of the universe its just a something humans made up to make adding the same number to itself "multiple" times easier, The second number just represents the anount of times that number should exist in the equation.
1 x 1 = 1 because 1 x anything(number) is the thing(number) i.e 1x2=2 1x3=3
Rules help to make things clear, but if you ignore the rules and operate on your own perception we will get many answers.
There's nothing anomalous about this equation at all.
Root 2 multiplied by itself is 2. Root 2 multiplied by itself and then multiplied by itself again gets you 2.82... Which is the same as saying root 2 multiplied by 2.
Why is everyone so amazed by this?
This is not genius…this is a man more determined to be a trailblazer than he is determined to follow rules of arithmetic.
It is utterly impossible for those two numbers to be the same. The reason it appears the same is twofold. 1)The calculator does not show enough digits…and it couldn’t. The answer is an irrational number that repeats forever. 2) Because and the iPhone calculators round to begin with, then continue using the rounded number, the problems caused by the missing digits are exacerbated. It’s the rounding that makes them look equal, but its happening on a small level. Let me show you an example….
The square root of 4.4 is about 2.09
The square root of 4.5 is about 2.12.
If your calculator only goes to one decimal place, both answers will be 2.1 !!!
The rounding would make them appear equal. This is what’s happening, except there are way more digits cut off by the calculator here.