The initial 1 is the only number of value in the equation. The second 1 is how many times it occurs. That’s why the answer to 1, one time, is one. This isn’t difficult.
You don’t get it. He’s saying that how come something that is not multiplied being said it’s multiplied. 1 multiplied by 1 is not multiplication it’s just “once” Multiplication= made more of
but one thing in two piles is not two things...it is one half of one thing, twice. the logic becomes. it follows two piles of 2 things is four things in total. there is a logical gap.
come on - everyone had that sort of thoughts at some point. Most of us don't understand contemporary physical theories, we operate on "authority" basis. If someone is said to be smart, then so he is. Don't pretend you have working understanding of Quantum Field Theory, than theory of this guy.
The real thing to be scared of is to be so emotionally vested in the theories that were etched into all of our brains systematically through institutions, Then to just be proven incorrect scientifically and mathematically, our minds would be subject to destruction knowing everything we were taught or knew was proven not to be true.
Terrence Howard wrote his entire paper based on a misunderstanding of what the word "multiplication" means. It doesn't mean "always makes more of something." This is what an insane person does. They start with a misunderstanding, then they construct their entire reality on top of it.
@@jesse_cole I just offered a counterexample to your premise that Terrence " based his "entire paper on a misunderstanding" . That has occurred many times in intellectual history and is not "insane"
@MrBeen992 lol, no. You didn't offer a single counterpoint to the fact that TERRENCE based his book on a misunderstanding. The fact that mainstream ideas have been debunked in the past doesn't make 1x1 equal 2, dude. The burden of proof here is on Terrence to prove he's not wrong (and you, if you want to convince anyone that he's right). Do better.
@@jesse_cole LOL ytou still dont understand. I was trying to offer an argument that you dont have to be insane, as you suggest, to base your theory :"on a misunderstanding". Do you understand now, or are you as dense as Howard ?
Ya but Terrance knows that 45 degrees plus 45 degrees equals 180 degrees, which brings the sign right back to where it started as a multiplication sign. This means he was right all along to multiply instead of add…. This man is an absolute genius!
I’m pretty sure it’s the wave conjugations are equal and opposite of the magnetism, which makes the void in the ether a no go, because quite simply there are no straight lines
@@cdubs5738 No. It's because you are not multiplying volumetrically and using the correct angles of incidence, then you generate the right frequencies corresponding to the appropriate element in the periodic table. This is common sense man 🤦🏾♂️
It's a freaking prank. It's a new age scam he and some ghost writers came up with and in a couple of weeks they´ll come clean and say it was a social experiment. And they're trying to figure out who picks up on what. The chemical engineering program is one thing, and other people will pickp up other stuff.
"How many times did he score a goal in the soccer game today?" "He scored once. One time." 1 goal, 1 time. Terrence: "That makes two." Golly, guess we need to call FIFA and change the records.
1 x 1 = 1 is equal to 1 = 1. In your chit example you are simply stating that one event (soccer game) had one player who scored a goal one time. The formulas for each are 1=1, 1=1, 1=1. Were two identical goals scored by two identical soccer players? If so, then, 1 x 1 = 1. Good luck finding a space and time bending machine to find two identical things of anything in existence. Peace
@@kieror583 apple². Thing is you can add apples, so 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apple, but you cant multiply them because multiply an apple by apple makes no sense.
Howard just gave a speech via video at Emory Law School for the US Patent and Trademark Office. I’m just now seeing all this about his research online. I am just in awe. I had no idea what he was talking about and now I see why. I’m no scientist but before law school I got a science degree. Now I understand why I didn’t understand him. It didn’t make any sense.
Generally, we tend to say that something doesn't make sense when we don't understand. I personally disagree with 1×1=2 but I'm still amazed by his bubble representation.
Let a x b = c; Square both sides gives (a x b)^2 = c^2; Expand left side (a x b) (a x b) = c^2; (a) (a x b^2) = a^2 x b^2 = c ^2; Divide both sides by b^2 gives a^2 = c^2 / b^2; Now let c = 2 and b =1 and take the Sqrt of both sides to solve for a That is Sqrt (a^2) = a = Sqrt (c^2 / b^2) = Sqrt (2^2 / 1^2) = Sqrt (4 / 1) = Sqrt (4) = 2, thus a = 2; Therefore when b = 1 and c = 2 then a = 2; Now substitute those values for a, b, and c into the original algebraic equation: a x b = c or in this case 2 x 1 = 2. Therefore, if 2 x 1 is 2 then 1 x 1 can not be 2. Conclusion Terrence Howard is WRONG and should find something else to do with his life! Fly fishing perhaps?
Can you write a mathematical equation to explain how magic works or give us a formula that we can work with to explain levitation. Your 1 dumb smart guy times yourself😂😂😂😂
Ok lets do this: if a camera captured a side angle of you looking into a mirror how many images of 'One' (as in person) would you see? Does it change the fact that is still just one person? So your sense of perception is off even by using all of that extra unnecessary stuff. 😂😂😂 goofy
@@Mathematica702this foolishness has nothing to do with a country.. this is an Actor.. we just had 2 high school girls in Louisiana find new theories independently and with 2 different processes!!! It was peer reviewed by Adult experts and it was real and accurate.. they are stars..
"Breathing in and breathing out. The universe expands, but what about it breathing in?" -- This is the PERFECT example of Reasoning by Analogy instead of Reasoning by First Principles.
Thats… thats actually insane LMFAOOO reasoning with analogy can be useful in philosophy to elucidate moral truths and such… they are NOT useful in physics for determining how the universe works. Youre conflating analogy with thought experiment and even then, thought experiments are meaningless without data and research. You cabt just say “well people breath in and out, therefore the universe has to also expand and contract” -thats incredibly silly
@@xalian17smh you buffons listened and believed in a man that sat in a wheelchair for 55 years, teaching you about physics, the cosmos and math... Couldnt talk , relied on a machine to do the talking for him and you fools believed everything that was coming out of that machine( no questions asked).... I realizer a long time ago that it doesnt matter what information is being put out there. If a Yt man isnt the voice of it, then there will be push back...even if hes crippled ,voiceless without any motor skill and plug up to AI machine. As long as he's Yt , you'd bite
multiplication sign is a mathematical expression. what if he used a different word instead of "add a 1".. semantics. guy needs to learn discrete mathematics, number theory, and such. but i doubt he will
Think about multiplication as a process... Takes the contents of a container and evaluate them using counting...So imagine you have a jar that has a number in it... something x something...( Some number of jars ) & ( some number of objects inside the jar)...So 1 x 1...( One jar ) & ( Some number of objects inside )...1 jar--1object_in_each_jar= 1 object....2jars--2objects_in_each_jar = 4 objects...3jars--1object_ib_each_jar = 3 objects...
@@alexnowicki286 just write it as a sum, that can be done with multiplication. so 3*1=(0+1+1+1). or rather the sum of 1, with the limits being 0 and 3. 3*1=(0+1+1+1)=3. its even still true if you multiply with other numbers. for example 3*3=9, or 3*(0+1+1+1)=(0+3+3+3)=9. the same can be done with 1*1=(0+1)=1. 3*1=3*(0+1)=3. it even works if you break it down further. 3*3=(0+1+1+1)*(0+1+1+1)=(0+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)=9. just write multiplication as a sum so you cant be confused by the term "multiplication".
I feel like some of what he says has merit but i cant tell i feel like im either too dumb to understand what hes saying or it makes absolutely no sense in general lol
He said... "1x1 can be one if u only see it one time but as soon as u ADD the second one" He just said add another 1.... Your not adding another 1. The second one is describing how many times ur seeing the first one that exists. ITS A DESCRPTIVE NUMERAL SAYING HOW MANY TIMES UR SEEING THE NUMBER THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS.
Take the 1 away from the equation and replace it with a cigarette. If you have 1 cigarette and MULTIPLY it by itself, what would you have? 2 cigarettes right? 🤔
Then it shouldn't be 1x1...It should be 1x0 if we are only looking at the 1 exclusively 😂. Believe it or not T.Howard is correct...the minute you add a multiplying factor of another 1(1×1),it can't stand still because it's defeating it's own purpose of multiplying...
What is 1x0.1 terrence? What about 1x0.5, or even pretty wild 1x0.9? The answers are (0.1, 0.5, 0.9) how does 1x1 magically change the trend? Even use 2x1, it equals 2, how the fuck does 1x1 equal the same as 2x1?
It was Einstein who said "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Seems the haters and naysayers are unconsciously stuck in the same thinking that created this issue. Open mind, is a positive, progressive and necessary for advancement. Without Terrences 'attitude' and willingness to think for himself, outside the box and every inventor in history before him, we'd still be hunter gatherers. Consider that for a moment.
Exactly. It’s important to question all beliefs and assumptions. That’s what true science is supposed to be all about. Versus this modern day, scientism where people stay locked in a box of preconceived notions and believe them as if they were a religion, not to be questioned.
@@EvolutionOfMan The only people who believe that science is a kind of religion are the scientifically illiterate. Despite the commonly held belief, there definitely are stupid questions.
Sometimes the professor runs into a student that knows something that he/she doesn’t know, and finds it hard to accept. This has happened all down through history. Does anyone remember Linus Pauling and vitamin C, and how he was trashed for years. I believe that instead of castigating the person we should research what he/she is proposing.
There is a confusion of the semantic English meaning of „multiply“ with the mathematical definition of multiplication. „To multiply“ in English means „to make more, to increase in quantity“. But that is not the definition of mathematical multiplication, which is simply a short form of addition to zero. The definition of mathematical multiplication of whole numbers A and B is: A indicates the number of times of B added to 0. If you apply this definition you arrive at 1 x 2 = „the number 2 added one time to 0“, 2 x 2 = „the number 2 added two times to 0“. You can of course just say, I am going to define multiplication the same way for all other cases but the number 1. But this is because you confuse semantics and mathematical operations. And you cannot have a unified definition of your ‚new‘ notation.
@@technoweasel8937 you confuse the English meaning with the mathematical definition. The latter does not have to match you understanding of the English word ‚multiply‘. By the way, this confusion you have arises in English but not in other languages.
The multiplication operation of 1 multiplied by 1 resulting in 1 is a fundamental property of multiplication known as the multiplicative identity property. In mathematics, the multiplicative identity property states that any number multiplied by 1 will equal the original number. This property applies to all numbers, not just 1. So, when we say 1 multiplied by 1 is equal to 1, we are essentially stating that when you multiply any number by 1, the result will be the original number itself. This property helps maintain consistency in mathematical operations and is a fundamental concept in arithmetic.
So why do you think this man is trying so fervently to convince us we’ve been wrong all these years?! RUclips has helped me realize I haven’t been walking right, sitting correctly, and , of course, my misconception of basic mathematical principles!😂😂 God bless us all!😊
@Horgan5905r Explain how 1x1 would give you 2? If you have a dog showing up one time, where tf do your get two dogs from? Is this an infinite dog glitch?
For those of you that are a bit confused about multiplication with 0's and 1's, here it's explained in easy to understand terms. How can 1 x 0 = 0? If you have 1 apple and give it 0 times to your grandma, how many apples did your grandma receive from you? She received 0 apples. How can 0 x 1 = 0? If you have 0 apples, and give it to your grandma 1 time, how many apples did your grandma receive from you? One again, she received 0 apples. How can 1 x 1 = 1? If you have 1 apple, and give it your grandma 1 time, how many apples did your grandma receive from you? She received 1 apple.
2 groups of 2 apples is 4 apples. 4 groups of 4 apples is 16. 1 group of 1 apple is 1 apple. how hard is that? Draw circles for groups if you can't visualize it. If I deliver 5 pizzas to you 3 times today then you get 15 pizzas. If I deliver you 5 pizzas two times today then you get 10 pizzas. If I deliver you 5 pizzas one time then you get 5 pizzas. If I try to deliver you 5 pizzas zero times today (my car breaks down) then you get zero pizzas, not 5. Multiplication is how many times the event occurs, hence the x symbol.
LOL yep. He doesnt understand simple multiplication. He is thinking too deep instead of just looking at the basic fundamentals of math. He's just dropping names. Nothing more.
Its more. Cause the energy of 2, is more than 1, so its actually 4. 1 is 1, and 2 is the doble, and 3 is tripple. Maybe its 5? Idk, i didnt learn howwiemath. I think the consept is that you can make it whatever you want. Just like a guy with a dick and boobs is a girl
The 1 * 1 = 2 business is the very first thing in Howard's book, and he's demonstrably wrong from the get-go. He says: _If 4/2 is the inverse operation of 2 x 2 = 4_ _Then it would naturally follow that 2/1 is the inverse operation of 1 x 1 = 2_ But the inverse of 2 * 2 = 4 is not simply 4/2, it is 4/2 _= 2_ . *He left out the quotient,* and what that means is that the inverse of 2/1 = 2 is 1 * _2_ = 2, not 1 * 1 = 2. Squaring the denominator of a fraction is NOT how you derive its inverse. E.g., the inverse of 10/2 = 5 is 5 * 2 = 10, not 2 * 2 = 10. I.e., a/b = c is the inverse of c * b = a. His premise is false. Amazing that some people are buying what he's selling.
Great explanation of the flaw in Terrence's logic in regards to 1x1. I applaud you. However, he is saying a lot more than that. He can be misguided on 1x1 and be correct on many of his other statements. No one is perfectly right or wrong. You have to discern each statement, to determine their validity. Most people are more interested and intrigued by his other statements and what he has actually produced; than just 1x1 = 2.
@@Phillipe1969 For sure, but he chose to entitle his book "1 x 1 = 2", and he starts with that flawed premise as an argument for why you should trust him instead of well-established and proven math concepts. And he follows his "proof" with this on page 2: _"Dear World, I have been told by many that the releasing of this truth may pose certain challenges in my life. For there are many institutions that this truth will be viewed as disruptive to their system of profit and gains."_ So, he went all in on his flawed premise. That said, I watched all 4 hours of the JRE podcast with him and Eric Weinstein, and I thought Weinstein did a great job of pointing out the flaws while respecting the value he found. He rightly pointed out that some of Howard's ideas about engineering have merit but that Howard makes multiple claims related to math that are just patently false. When I first listened to Howard's ideas, his combination of word salad with his flawed premise made me dismissive of his ideas, but Weinstein's JRE appearance showed me that there were some small nuggets worth paying attention to.
Ooooook that means we believe everything a dude dreamed and said on a comedians podcast?? I feel like everyone's forgotten Joe Rogan is a stand up comedian not the basis for science and fact. He just let's people run wild for the entertainment factor. Even he was questioning Terrence. He remembers being in the womb. That's INSANE talk. Also basically said he was Einstein in a prior life like dude is coked outta his gourd.
In the equation 1X1, there is only one number there, which is '1'. The other is not a number, but rather an object in which the number of 1 is acting upon.
But, there is no spoon... 1 is merely a construct of consciousness. Everything is a wave, separated by awareness. We're splitting hairs and calling it science, politics, religion, etc.
Read the proof. And think. How does a single cell instantaneously multiply into 2? Like an embryo growing to 2x then 4x etc cells into a baby? There is a higher dimension an octave above that brings physical things into existence. This channel has other videos breaking this down. (I think there was an experiment with cancer cells and how they manifested in a group of women. Anyway, the higher dimension manifests the “gravity”. Gravity is not a result of physical mass, like previously believed. We now know it can be revered at local points. It’s connected to the electrical field that joins the dimensions. Go read the proof and see how it leads to explanations of many phenomena unexplained or poorly explained because the Aether was removed from equation. The math and science we’re using is based on a 2D flat Cartesian model BECAUSE the early philoso-scientists believed the earth/universe was FLAT. Lookup flower of life, also read the proof for 1x1. Good stuff
The X in the equation means to multiply the said object. You can't have it both ways. You could say 1 always equals 1 and can't be divided. However in science we know that's also false. Hence the term Division Wave Multiplexing. This type of technique enables bidirectional communications over a single strand of fiber and it's commonly known that anything can be divided.
@@richhyltona single cell doesn’t instantaneously multiply into two it undergoes mitosis, which occurs after a series of cellular functions that prepares the cell for mitosis. DNA is replicated in S phase and other important cell growth occurs during the G1 and G2 phases. Then chromosomes compact, the nuclear lamina breaks down, the mitotic spindle forms, and microtubules pull the chromosomes apart as an actin contractile ring separate the two cells in cytokinesis. No need for higher dimensions here, just explainable physical phenomena.
In mathematics, the number 1 acts as a multiplicative identity. This means that multiplying any number by 1 results in the original number itself. So, 1 * 1 = 1 because 1 is being multiplied by itself, essentially resulting in itself.
Hahaha so 2+0 doesnt equal 2 because the + symbol means you have to add something? Whats the definition of addition? You cant add zero? Also the definition of multiple is not increase more than itself. 4 X 0.5 = 2 which is a decrease genuis 😂😂😂
@@riely there is no difference, multiplication means to add the numbers as often as the nominant tells you. 3x1= 1+1+1=3. 1x1 is the same as 1=1. you seem not to understand it either?
Holy smokes, we got actors trying to tell us our Bachelor degrees aren’t worth the paper they’re written on lol!! Any number multiplied by 1 equals itself..that means there’s only one number in the equation. If there’s a number multiplied by zero, then there is no number in the equation. Pretty simple stuff bro
BA's and BS's don't prove intelligence. They only recognize the fact that you invested time and money toward education. You graduate by passing the prescribed curriculum.There are masses of people that have been miseducated 🥸 and lied 🤥 to their entire lives by flawed systems designed by a select few. Some people like Terrence Howard are genuinely intelligent. They can analyze, research and test theories because of their interest in subjects. Just think 🤔of the 🧐 geniuses🤓 that decided to build some of our nuclear power plants near and on known earthquake fault lines.
What irritates me is that astrophysicists who have studied the physical properties and behavior of celestial objects using advanced mathematical and scientific techniques to better understand the formation, evolution, and behavior of galaxies, stars, planets, and other celestial bodies have said Howard is mistaken in his black hole models. Yet laymen with the barest understanding of black holes are saying that Terrance Howard has advanced concepts that need to be considered. Why? because he talks a good line, like a good actor would.
Breterson a lot of ur bsc is strit bull it not worth the paper its written on U are tought that current in a battery flow from positive to negative in Battery n that a total lie the hot leg of the battrey is negative nut an establush Right habd rules say uppersit that why all high diller car have Positive ground n some airplanes so with all the bs of ut bsc what is it worth look at medicine how much truth is tough to the young interns about diets and sude effect of pharmaceutical which meant poison why is it you need a licensed of drugs n poison to operate a pharmacy n a Barr or a spirit licenson
I've attempted to read the draft of your book. The first page says, "If 4/2 is the inverse operation of 2x2=4, then it would naturally follow that 2/1 is the inverse of 1×1=2". Some literature for you: If four items are split into two sets, then two sets remain that have two items. An independent number of items are subsequently subtracted from my field of vision, memory, relevance, etc according to the number of instances I have observed the number of items. So yes, if I see two items and at one point decide to categorize them, then notice another instance where i have categorized what happen to be another two items, I would reflect that the number of times I have categorized items in a set, there happened to be four total items between the two times I have applied them to some category. Two items "split" into one group still provides the observation of two items. One item observed as one set in one instance does not yield two items. It yields one item in one set, once only (or perhaps since I just said "one" three times, then that means 1x1x1=3). You have grossly misconstrued the context of value. Value is not doubled in the same way between an item added to an item and a set being added to an item. This is why multiplication does contain the process of addition, but repeatedly. If it only happens to be repeated one time, then the expression of this observation ensures accuracy of both the quantity of the item and the quantity of repetition that the item is observed. Moral of the story: I have waisted a few precious minutes of my life to learn by the first page that yes, you are actually serious.
Oh, I see, he is reasoning by some weird anal/ogy! "Since 4/2=2*2=sqr(2)=4, then 2/1=1*1=sqr(1)=2"!? But then he turns around and says (that) sqrt(2) is not 1 butt 2!? Oh, now he really is just taking the piss.
I couldn't believe that what you quoted was actually what he wrote because it's so mind-numbingly ignorant, so I looked at his book's first page... and there it is 😳. I'll offer an even simpler explanation than you did. His whole premise is wrong. The inverse of 2 * 2 = 4 is not simply 4/2, it is 4/2 _= 2_ . *He left out the quotient,* and what that means is that the inverse of 2/1 = 2 is 1 * _2_ = 2, not 1 * 1 = 2. I.e., a/b = c is the inverse of c * b = a. Incredible that anyone would take this guy seriously.
Its amazing to me that people can hear how eloquently this man speaks and how he quotes his knowledge but still want call him crazy. Just goes to show most people have never had an original thought in their lives everything has been told to them
@amirparsi4165 If all you got from Terrance was his controversial statement of 1x1 not being 1 just shows how little intelligence you have yourself. If you listen and do research into what he is talking about you would be amazed. But you probably haven't learned anything outside of mainstream academia
What's so eloquent about what he says? I with my master's degree on engineering only keep hearing links between concepts that have nothing to do with eachother and drawings of geometrical shapes without any meaning, let alone any real world application. You are such a troll
It’s funny that in this clip Terrence Howard says we never breathe in twice before breathing out. But we do, and we do it very often. It has a calming effect, taking us out of the sympathetic nervous system’s fight or flight mode and into the parasympathetic nervous system. According to Dr. Andrew Huberman it’s what’s called, “the physiological sigh”.
If you start the equation wrong "1x1 = 2" it's all downhill "Wrong" after that. If I needed to drive South to Benson St. but I went north, there is no way to get there unless I turned some corners (back tracked) or drove around the World to get back to that point. which would be unnecessary.
hmmm... Multiply is just adding sets of numbers instead of adding individual numbers.... If he wants to define the relationship of numbers in some new way, that's fine, call it "Terrenceification "or something. But, it's not multiplication.
I mean now, since the math on them works; still can't get them always over the totaled sums, but there are several to try - YOU CANNOT get less than them added, not all of them are them same as when added YOU TRY IT - GENIUS take your armchair - GENIUS! and YOU CANNOT get them to 4. WHAT IS 2 x 2? And 1. anything but 0'z to infinity, ANYTHING is more than 1 -THNKING? SO IT NEVER MAKES SENSE that multiplying VALUES -get what math represents, GENIUS - that are over 1 and less than 2 cannot reach even 2! GET THAT?,
@@joshuabloecker4364 WTF are you talking about, You can't even form a comprehensible paragraph how do you think you understand math. 2x1=2 you can test multiplication. Take 10 blocks put them in a row then take blocks and 9 more down from each row now you have 10 blocks across and 10 blocks down. 10x10 is 100 you have 100 blocks, count them its 100. now take 2 blocks and and go 2 blocks down 2x2 is 4 count them its 4 blocks. Now take 1 block 1x1 is 1 count the blocks, its 1 block. This how multiplication works and how we know 1x1 is 1 not 2.
1.81 x 1.54 Next step: .181 + .154 = 3.35 But the calculator, right? & this is only for values b/w 1 and 2 - it will always work better than saying multiplying in this case means never even get to two. WHEN ADDING gets you past 2. GET IT. NO. IT IS NOT "multiplying is adding"; it's a more logical answer.
As a chemist I gotta say the term “it’s a lie” is so important. Science isn’t the key to everything…it’s us just trying to understand the world around us. Someone who read a 101 level book who thinks that they know everything is literally the opposite of what we call the principle of science.
T Howard is getting the concept of addition and multiplication confused. 1x1=1, 1X2=2 , 1X3=3, 1X20=20, 1X50=50, 1X100=100, 1X1000=1000. In this world when the system of multiplication was setup the 1st rule was that anything times it self (which is 1) will be itself. So technically multiplication doesn't begin its usefulness until a number is being multiplied by 2 or greater. Even 0 X 1 = 0, In short anything times 1 is a mirror of itself. So maybe taking 1 out of the multiplication system will help Mr. Howard.
Thats more like i understand it. 1x1=1 isn´t wrong, its just pointless. Multiply anything with 1 is simply pointless, so when he says it shouldn´t be part of the multiplication table, he isn´t wrong. It shouldn´t be because its a waste and serves no purpose. Doesn´t really harm someone either i would like to say, but i am not so sure anymore considering Mr.Howard. 1x1=1 has seriously confused him it seems. The conclusion that 1x1=2 though, that makes no sense to me at all.
@@hansoerteras3983 I agree. Have you ever heard a music band singer say "Hit me 1 time"? They are asking basically to have 1 of something done 1 time. So lets say the drummer will hit the drums 1 time, not twice. So, 1X1 =1 not 2 Mr. Howard...lol
@@10thlaw i give you 1 bag of 0 lolly= You have 0 Lolly. I give you 0 bag of 1 lolly= You still have 0 Lolly I give you 1 bag of 1 lolly= You have 1 Lolly I give you 2 bags of 1 Lolly= You have 2 lollies I give you 1 bag of 2 lollies = You have 2 lollies I give you 2 bags of 2 lollies= you have 4 lollies 3 bags of 3 lollies=9 lollies 4 of 4 lollies=16 lollies 4x5=20 1x0=0, 0x1=0, 1x1=1, 1x2=2,2x1=2, 2x2=4 etc......
If 2 x 2 = 4, meaning two, two times is 4, then 1 x 1 = 1 is because one, one time equals, one. Theres only one, it doesnt get multiplied. One, one time is one. Two, two times, is four.
You are not wrong here. However, what TH is trying to explain is that our current definition of multiplication is incorrect, or incomplete. Don't think of the x, shown in 1 x 1, as TIMES as in, 1 set of 1. TIMES should only be used when observing physical objects, as a way to describe how many of something there are. It's a statistical function. Multiplication is a short-hand way of showing addition. Therefore, you should be able to get the same answer from both multiplication and the relative sum, or addition. The original Latin definition of 'multiply' is 'to increase'. So, if we were to say "1 'increased by the magnitude' of 1", this would equal 2 because it is inherently the same as 1 + 1, (1 x 1 = 1 + 1). With this definition everything else in the multiplication table gives the same answers we already know, apart from anything multiplied by 1 or 0. An example would be, "1 'increased by the magnitude' of 0", which would give the answer of 1 because it is not being increased and is fundamentally the same as 1+0 (1 x 0 = 1 + 0). Currently, you can take any other number in the multiplication table, convert it to a sum of addition and it works, apart from anything multiplied by 1 or 0. For example, 3 x 3 = 9. As an addition sum this would be written as, 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 (3 x 3 = 3 + 3 + 3). We know that 1 + 1 = 2, so why does 1 x 1, not equal 2? It's because our current definition is incorrect/incomplete.
@@EIRW1Z The multiplication operation of 1 multiplied by 1 resulting in 1 is a fundamental property of multiplication known as the multiplicative identity property. In mathematics, the multiplicative identity property states that any number multiplied by 1 will equal the original number. This property applies to all numbers, not just 1. So, when we say 1 multiplied by 1 is equal to 1, we are essentially stating that when you multiply any number by 1, the result will be the original number itself. This property helps maintain consistency in mathematical operations and is a fundamental concept in arithmetic. Thinking math has to follow grammar is a linguistic fallacy. Linguistics and mathematics are two different domains.
@@LlonirTS I fully understand the concept of the multiplicative identity property. I'm also not disagreeing with it. It works for certain applications, such as statistics, as I already mentioned. What I do have a problem with, something you have also clearly failed to recognise, is that, at some point, someone had a thought, then spoke the multiplicative identity property into existence. So, in reality, linguistics has everything to do with mathematics, as does thought. Also, the multiplicative identity property does not apply to other numbers, it only applies when multiplying by the number 1 and also 0. So it does not provide consistency at all. If it were consistent, it would apply to all numbers, would it not? Seems strange to me to have a universal rule for 1 thing and not the others. Unless, it is so that observable objects can be grouped together to be counted, which makes it a statistical principle and also the reason the concept was created in the first place. Perhaps, then, it should be separated from all other mathematics and only apply when observing for statistical analysis.
(1 x 1 =1) = (1 = 1) It's strange to look at. Kind of like the whole dividing by zero conundrum. Every other multiplication of itself is a growth except this one.
Anybody old enough to drive knows about the Shrodingers cat thought expirement. If you're trying to use that as an example of how Terrence is correct then you need to go get re-education.
He’s clearly speaking in terms of analogy and it’s actually a decent thought if you evaluate it. People are quick to jump on something if it makes them feel smart debunking it. Every single adult that can drive understands why 1x1=1 But if you interpret the question differently in speech or writing then it is interesting to WHY it is
He’s an actor, not a scientist. Please keep that in mind when taking unsubstantiated claims at face value because he just sounds like he knows what he’s talking about.
@@TheBeanGreen yes, but to people with below average or possibly even average IQ he sounds smart. these kind of people will just recoil and double down in their beliefs if you tell them they're wrong. I mean that's why their so dumb in the first place. It's better to try to lead them into finding the answer on their own, and if that doesn't work, just try to say it very nicely.
“Multiplication means to make more and increase in number” Umm, no? Multiplication is counting groups of numbers. 1x2 is saying 1 group of 2. 2x2 is 2 groups of 2, and so on. This man doesn’t even understand basic algebra and people saying he’s right are also idiots.
You don't call someone an idiot because he has an opposing view. It's his view. Respect it. That's what scholarship is all about. Every scholar has had a thesis thrown out, not because they are idiots but they couldn't convince others. Some thrown out views came back to be the accepted view.
@@meztv8602I would bet my life that this is a view that will never be accepted. What he is encouraging is dangerous behaviour; don’t be angry when people aren’t happy with his bullshit.
@@HiddenBush64na metztv is right dude this has happened throughout history time and time and again. I wouldn’t bet your life on it. They would’ve bet their life that the earth was flat not too long ago, or the possibility of talking to someone miles away through electromagnetic waves in the air
The red lining reminds me of when I was preparing my capstone for my undergrad. It’s just a person who’s helping you clarify your ideas and create more accuracy in your discovery and entire point to follow. Little things become big things. I wouldn’t take that for granted.
Terrence Howard did indeed apply for three patents in the United States. However, none of these applications resulted in granted patents. It’s worth noting that the patent filing process doesn’t verify whether the invention works or makes sense; it simply ensures that no one else has claimed the same patent before. So, filing a patent doesn’t necessarily mean the invention is valid or functional. Some of Howard’s patent applications may have been filed under the name “T. Dashon Howard,” and a few of those applications were granted.
All he did was patent the shapes. If you look at patent law or guidelines. You don’t need testing or even a prototype. You just have to have an idea that’s new, useful, or statutory. All he did was not prove a theory correct, he just patient those shapes and models.
As a grade 12 student, literally all of these “scientific ideas” are completely unrelated and it’s hilarious 😂. He is trying to justify his ego and cult with science but the science is made up, his ego and cult are real.
This is almost laughable Any number multiplied by 1 will give you that number right?? 2 * 1 = 2 4 * 1 = 4 And so on So why does that have to change just because the number being multiplied is 1 Also, multiplication basically just shows you how many time a number appears in the answer like 4 * 2 = 8 Because 4 appears in 8 two times 2 * 1 = 2 Because 2 appears in 2 one time So by that logic, 1 * 1 = 1 Because 1 appears in 1 one time. As simple as that
People are getting stuck on that, but what you really need to understand is what he was getting at. NO ACTION OCCURS IN ETHER. There's ALWAYS a REACTION. So with one action, there's actually TWO. With electricity, there's magnetism. When you breathe in, you have to. breath it. When you stretch a rubber band, there's forces trying to draw you back in. When you throw a ball, gravity pulls it down.
Bruh, he really thinks multiplication automatically means "more" without thinking how it can be less, for example, 1×0.5 ... Which equals *drum roll* 0.5, which is less. SHOCKER, I know. Here's something else. Take your answer 0.5 and add to the 0.5 in the problem, and you end up with the 1 you started! Wow, it seemingly balances, doesn't it?!
He may not be right about 1 x1 =2. But that doesn’t mean everything else is wrong. We need people that think differently to figure out problems we haven’t been able to solve before. Am I right? Regardless of right or wrong this man should not be criticized. We need people to be able to speak freely about their ideas of how to solve problems so that someone who has the answer isn’t scared to speak up.
Agreed. I'm more interested in his computer simulation that can accurately predict planetary and galactic models using his lynchpin theory. Specifically, I'm curious if the code uses 1x1=2 as a logic structure. If not, separate the wheat from the chaff and keep moving forward.
We complicate everything. We changed the 13 month / 28 day lunar calendar to the 12 month/ each month has a different number of days Gregoroan calendar. For what? Just so that someone can attach thier name to it and get credit for it. I'm going to find and read his treatise this week. Very interesting stuff!
I have been into this 13 months calendar investigation for a long time. Gathering information. And I believe this is something that needs to be rectify too to get us into the normal cycles of nature. Any important source of info in this matter that you can share with me?
Howard is what an inspired person with just above average intelligence looks like, it's enough to fool and connect well with average people, but makes actually intelligent people roll their eyes
I see people taking a very strong stance on this guy. Some absolutely despise his theory and others think it's the new era of terriology. There is a middle ground here. He's obviously smart and he has admitted that his whole theory comes through intuition and not classical education. This makes the academics furious and the spiritualist rejoice. Maybe he has some useful, applicable knowledge but needs to be mentored by someone who can fill in the gaps of his intuitive knowledge. Maybe they can convince him he's completely wrong. But let's give it a break for a while and let it play out before we judge either way.
Well, when you read the ones praising him, and notice they all have terrible grammar and names like "lashandawilliams345", you can clearly see the situation that's going on.
I think at first I saw him with ridicule on the basis of basic arithmetic. But as I watched the video, the guy is talking abbout balancing act. Making for each one (force, entity in the universe) there has to be another balancing one, hence 1*1=2. He further adds, the universe is not expanding but there is another force which is balancing it. He uses this analogy to justify 1+1 or 1*1 both equals 2. Assumptions can be dangerous sometimes. I think despite crude or not, there might be some merit on what he says.
From a mathematician's perspective it is because 1 is the multiplactive identity of the real numbers. This os basic abstract algebra...Let "e" denote the identity of a group with operation "°". Let "a" be an element within this group. Then we have a°e=a, e°a=a, e°e=e. There are many more properties, but these are the relevant ones. So take the real numbers (the group) under multiplication (the operation). Let "a" be an element of the real numbers. Then a×1=a, 1×a=a and 1×1=1. I mean, sure, you could rewrite your definition of multiplication if it doesn't make sense to you.....but then youd have to rewrite group theory and abstract algebra...not so easy to do especially since it explains why all of these operations work the way they do!
he needs a mental institute, this guy is fucking insane !!! please go watch professor dave explains, terrence howard is a complete narcissist, don't fall into that trap also please. You are brighter than that !!! he uses hundreds of complicated words and sentences to make it look like he knows what he is talking about but when you really decompose it and look for what the words he is saying means, you realize how much bullshit goes out of his mouth.
He misunderstands many critical scientific issues. He conflates ideas and areas of science that are not directly related. Much of it is just pseudoscientific gobbledygook or supernatural assertions. And lastly, there is no such thing as "wave conjugations" and straight lines were not an outcome of a belief in a flat earth.
The way they’re treating Terrence. Howard is how they treated Dr. King in his prime. He died. Then he got his holiday. To challenge the status quo makes you a madman.
@@Liquidcadmus it's ironic you say that when there's a very high chance you utilized a satellite to post that comment... a satellite you can actually go out and observe right now if you have the equipment and use a little bit of that "misguided math" that has increased your lifespan and is allowing you those first world comforts with that smartphone lol.. you people are something else. can't believe humans can be this dented.
I just imagine that after Terry gave his treatise to Tyson, he followed Tyson into the restroom only to find his treatise floating in the toilet before proceeding to beat up Neil.
This is the problem with Neil, he is too arrogant, he could have talked to Terrence and spent time with someone who had a genuine interest and actually educate him, instead he just wanted to say he was wrong and stupid and don't waste my time... Damn shame
@@benjimc1 It's our job to put stupid people who never actually did the work in their place. If not this country fails to dumb like so many in history have already. Do you go and see your mechanic every time you get sick too? If you actually study mathematics you'd know Terrence likely suffers from mental illness cuz he sure aint talking any sense with 1 x 1 = 2. Even my friend with down syndrome thinks Terrence is mentally challenged. Definitely intelligent enough to regurgitate some lines, but has zero idea how insane he sounds or wtf he's talking about. Has he submitted his findings for peer-reviewed science? yes and no. 100% of them said its nonsense and gave evidence of how and why. Its available for study. He's just taking advantage of the new-age people who are staring at a glass of water thinking they can change it to wine because theyre looking at it with pure abundant belief. "What the bleep?" was like 20 years ago and still MFers trying to profit from it instead of getting a job. If Terrence just took a college Geometry I course he'd learn why those shapes and the mathematics that first defined them have existed since the Greeks. They werent trying to unlock some alchemical magic from these shapes, its the mathematic principles and equations that gave life to them. They were defined from the nature the math was made to represent. No magic necessary. He could have just read up on Pathagorys and he could have learned this himself if he had any ability to question and call out his bullshit like scientists excel at for a reason. That is why Im leaning toward mental illness because he's been coddled by Hollywood so long he can fathom that he could just be full of shit.
At 9:16, Howard shows a page from his book. It says "Allow me to Enlighten you. If 4/2 is the inverse of 2x2=4 then it would naturally follow that 2/1 is the inverse operation of 1x1=2" Right there Howard makes a mistake. He says that 4/2 is the inverse of 2x2=4. Notice how on the left side he only shows two numbers 4 and 2, but on the right side he shows three numbers, 2, 2, and 4. To be more correct Howard should have written 4/2 = 2. Now in math the number being divided is called the dividend, so 4 is he dividend. The number we are dividing by is called the divisor, so 2 is the divisor. The number that is the results or answer is called the quotient, so in this case the quotient is 2. So we have dividend 4/divisor 2 equal quotient 2. The inverse of this operation is the divisor x quotient = dividend, so we have 2 x 2 =4. Now we apply this to Howard's "2/1 is the inverse of 1 x 1 =2." First we add what Howard left out, namely 2/1 = 2. Now we can say that the inverse of 2/1 = 2 is 1x2=2. That is the divisor 1 times the quotient 2 is equal to the dividend 2. You see Howard start his elementary error by saying that 2/1 is 1, when correctly 2/1 is 2. From that point on he continues his parade of simple and suspicious math errors. Howard continues to hide certain things conveniently. Notice on that same page he has headings for Division, Addition, Subtraction, and Multiplication. Notice how Division is the only one that does not use number equations. He does not want to write out 2/1 = 2 because that would contradict his 1x1=2, so instead he says "The number two is divided by one, twice. Then on the next page Howard says that "2/1 is inconsistent with 1x1=1," again conveniently leaving out that 2/1 =2 for the third time. Makes Howard's whole reasoning suspicious.
You can't blame any education system for this level of drug induced mental illness fueled by utter stupidity. This is mental masturbation fueld by cocaine, adderol and an internet connection.
Terrence pointed out that the definition of the word "multiplication" is wrong because there's the exception with the number 1, in which the number isn't being added to itself. Instead of just pointing this out he based his entire life thinking that the rest of the world was wrong instead of this 1 word definition being incorrectly worded.
Some of you are way overcomplicating this and I lost all respect for Terrence watching just 5 minutes of this. The "x" multiplier is NOT an additive function! That is what "+" is for!!! Think of it this way: 1 apple x 1 apple eaten= 1 apple eaten. If I eat 1 the apple (the first 1 in the equation) ONE time (the second one in the equation), how many apples have I eaten an APPLE? By his logic I would have eaten the one apple twice. IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
@@MlNOOOOR Regardless, he used this concept to get you to respond. Perhaps he has a point, perhaps he hasn't even understood his own point. But here we are. Trying to figure out if 1x1=2. Dude's smart.
@@charleshorseman55 Well, this 1 times 1 is making us all mis the point. Dont you guys understand he's trying to say, that there are ways in this universum where u can create generators with free energy etc. If this man is right, there wont be Laws of thermodynamic and alot of other laws...
It all depends on how big the first 1 is as compared to the second 1. Assume the "ones" we are talking about are logs. If the first log was 10 times bigger than the second log then the natural log rhythms would be in a completely different key and you would have no way to get a new key made at Home Depot. Nobody even mentions this.
I’m following you his perspective isn’t as far out as some are making I’m just not in that field to know if that math can even be questioned but it’s not far fetched when you can think outside the box a little bit
It means everything. That's why there is two different numbers for pi , Einsteins with the curve of the glass and DaVinci's pi before they made America. If you learned facts of history in America, you should stop arguing all the time and unite. Seriously come TO,GET,HER or learn to swim. The country is drowning in debt...
if I have 3 5 dollar bills I have 15=,3*5... if I give u 1, you have 5 dollars 1*5 =5.. not even up for debate I have 1 dollar bill I have 1 dollar 1*1=1
Your logic is flawed. If you gave me 1 5 dollar bill, I got 5 dollar. There’s therefore no need to introduce 1 in the sequence anymore. That’s the whole point of the debate. If 1x1=1, why have it in the table since the table is all about multiplication? If I also got $1 & multiply it by 0, I still got my $1, since 0 ain’t providing any multiplication. This goes beyond science, it requires human intelligence & balance of objectivity.
where in nature is it just 1. Tell me the equation to the atom, its surely not just "1" or is it a different number? notice how you used a currency explanation. You're so brainwashed by materialism 😈
Its been awhile now since this Terrance situation happened. I'm not sure what to think but what really confuses me is the lack of physicists and scientists saying that he is wrong.
That's the same question I have, if he's wrong there will be someone to prove him wrong. Until now, no one came with sound justifications besides resistance to change
@@victorsengo5089 The very opening of his book comes from misunderstanding multiplication. I have read into the first handful of pages and am lacking finding anything of substance. It is hard to continue reading when the opening argument is incorrect.
Because renowned scientists usually don't comment on the ramblings of drunk from the corner store. Just like Al Pacino wouldn't comment on me calling his movies shit on RUclips.
@@ljunderground you have to read it through, you cannot understand where he's going without reading the whole book. You might disagree but it doesn't mean it's wrong, the old church burnt people because they came with new ideas. Don't be like the old church
he isn't their peer, and his claims are well known nonsense. it's hard for the average person to realize this, but to people even slightly above average IQ, it's clear as day that his math and science is just misguided and has no actual data. it's like a con man putting on a show. this is not how you do science. THERE'S NO DATA. just ramblings. he needs to show some results. some experiments. some data. not just talk about it like it's a philosophy class...
Look, I’m no scholar, I’m not very well educated nor do I have a solid grasp on mathematics. I say that to say this. This sounds very compelling, and it has piqued my curiosity, one thing I think Terrance has misunderstood is 1x1, it can’t equal 2 because it’s just another way of saying “ 1 one time” 5x1 is 5 one time….everything else he is saying sounds interesting nevertheless. I hope the academic community at large soak it up, pull it apart, confirm or deny what works and what doesn’t, use what does, toss what doesn’t. But I don’t think he should be written off without throughly examining every aspect til exhaustion.
you and everyone that says this, say it because indeed you are not educated. anyone educated realizes how silly it is. he's not even presenting any facts or data or findings of experiments.. nothing. it's philosophy. this is not science.
He’s demonstrating the disconnect between the word picture and the math tables. Math is an expression of a philosophical concept. If you change your verbiage to his model suddenly more concepts are easier to digest. In finance we do math the way he does. If I took money and returned the same amount and told ppl I multiplied it once they’d be pissed. Unless they see a 100% return which is now DOUBLE their return … I didn’t multiply anything.
NGT is a shill. He has not published in years. He mocks far more than he understands. He attacks what has never been or can be challenged mainly because they are theories without presenting his own. He is the mouthpiece of the demagogy of “science”…even disciplines he has zero business talking about. Let the weird theories be tested and the truth will sooner or later show itself.
There are many instances where one might need to multiply two expressions, each of which reduces to 1. And you need to get that result correct! IT IS *NOT* "2". Just wait until he discovers that you can multiply times *fractional* numbers and get LESS than you started with. I guess that such basic arithmetic will blow his mind. Multiplication and division are the same exact thing--one can be converted to the other. They're just different ways of expression. By the way, having a patent doesn't mean that "it works"; it doesn't mean that it has value, and it doesn't mean that it's valid. But if you have the time, the money, and want to protect an idea nobody's interested in, you can still get a patent. Or 97 of them. It doesn't justify, validate, or vindicate your "work".
@@michaelstone3463 I get you, but to be specific. Why do we need to indicate the equation “1 x 1 = 1” any other number I’m with you. But it’s a waste of breathe to even say 1 x 1 equals 1.
And I fought my teacher early 90’s that 1x1=2 because I’ve learned in my dreams that it was but I couldn’t explain exactly how and why, she then said that I could learn in advanced math that it was a possibility but for 2nd grade purposes I needed to engrave in my mind that 1x1=1 as an absolute truth to pass on my tests lol
@@albaus take into account that 1 is not just +1 but -1, on the number line from zero left and right. So 1×1 is not just +1 but is also -1, which makes 2 from 0, but also makes 0. 1=2 =0, which satisfies quantum mathematics, a wave is a particle, and nothing is something. Self identification is to exist independently, all senses lead into one identity, you. Every object is a separation of one original object. Mathematics is the study of 1 or one line as everything, a particle, center of gravity of oxygen, a black hole.
@@chadbreton4951 see, just like I thought, white man with no answer, just hates that others know what he doesn't know. Welcome to reality where the white man doesn't know everything.
He ended up back-pedaling and said that 1x1=2 is a "metaphor." Reality hit him like a truck in the latest podcast episode. The Dunning Kruger effect is so fascinating.
which is what we've been doing for a millennia or do you not realize that with that smartphone in your hand and electric vehicles driving by.. ffs... idk what low IQ people's fascination is with the world being in same state of stagnation or something.. it's so weird.
@@user-jp2ss4ws5n There is nothing wrong with questioning. There is something wrong with dismissing correct things and believing things that are blatantly wrong.
Science is pretty straight up about us not knowing everything. Nobody in the science community is saying that everything to know already known. On the contrary: the more we know, the more we become aware of the massive amounts of knowledge we don't yet have. There's nothing wrong with questioning. However, you also can't treat the question as if it's proof that the status quo is wrong. Because then anybody can just question anything, which effectively puts the onus on everybody else to do the work for the person asking the question to either prove it right or wrong. TH has not attempted, in good faith, to prove anything he says using any math or science that has been peer reviewed and proven time and again for centuries by billions of people. He didn't like the feedback he got, so he simply made up his own world, stringing together lots of things that either don't relate or are entirely misinterpreted to either support or refute whatever he wants to say. It's like trying to have a conversation with someone who is speaking a language that they themselves made up that has no basis on any language that has ever existed in the history of humanity, and whatever words they do know of the language you speak, they perpetually and confidently keep misusing them. It's... crazy.
People are hung up on the 1x1 thing, but the rest of what he’s saying regarding geometry and it’s ability to harness energy is spot on. In 500 years we will look back on todays math/physics and laugh at how wrong we were. There is much beyond our senses, harnessing the metaphysical is the real next break through. Funny how everyone attacks these ideas now, but no one pauses to think about how Galileo, though correct, was sentenced to death because people simply couldn’t see beyond the current paradigm. History repeats itself.
The improvements in the world of Science you see are done by the people who have balls of steel to test their theory and make numerous attempts to disprove it before saying "I have done it". Einstein who accidentally predicted Dark matter before it was discovered, named it as a blunder.. and here you see a guy who is conveniently making blunders and seeking shelter under the names of great people of Science. This is arrogance and irresponsibility.. this is not how Science progresses.
1 * 1 = 1 if you move the * 1 to the other side of the equation you get: 1 = 1/1 this is basically 1 is equal to the amount of 1s that fit into the number 1 1 = 1 the answer is 1=1 so 1*1 = 1
You can transcribe Jazz. Individual performances vary based on style of improvisation based on the chord movements and the players involved. Any individual performance can be transcribed. It's still time, chords, notes, key signatures, modes, and scales. it's not mysterious. Also, what's true Jazz? Wes Montgomery? Miles Davis? Allan Holdsworth? Jon Benjamin? Me playing the theremin with my dick?
@@richspillman4191 Ooh - it is a valid art form (jazz) - it could be considered noise - by others. I do not know - what Mr Howard thinks and so, we are left - to our own perspectives - as always. Very clever - comment - actually. Tra la la ... Fare thee well - in life's journey.
The initial 1 is the only number of value in the equation. The second 1 is how many times it occurs. That’s why the answer to 1, one time, is one. This isn’t difficult.
He thinks talking to a non scientist would make it right 😂
it's the square root of 2 part that is kind of interesting. not that it negates 1x1=2 but still interesting
You don’t get it. He’s saying that how come something that is not multiplied being said it’s multiplied.
1 multiplied by 1 is not multiplication it’s just “once”
Multiplication= made more of
Huh?
but one thing in two piles is not two things...it is one half of one thing, twice. the logic becomes. it follows two piles of 2 things is four things in total. there is a logical gap.
the scary part is not terrence howard saying this. The scary part is hiw many people agree.
I agree with him, I thought it when I was in school
come on - everyone had that sort of thoughts at some point. Most of us don't understand contemporary physical theories, we operate on "authority" basis. If someone is said to be smart, then so he is. Don't pretend you have working understanding of Quantum Field Theory, than theory of this guy.
The real thing to be scared of is to be so emotionally vested in the theories that were etched into all of our brains systematically through institutions, Then to just be proven incorrect scientifically and mathematically, our minds would be subject to destruction knowing everything we were taught or knew was proven not to be true.
@@jasonryan9659Do you actually agree with everything Terrence Howard said?
Wow, chill, i understand quantum field theory, and terrance is smoking his socks.
Terrence Howard wrote his entire paper based on a misunderstanding of what the word "multiplication" means. It doesn't mean "always makes more of something." This is what an insane person does. They start with a misunderstanding, then they construct their entire reality on top of it.
Not necessarily. Gottlob Frege wrote a whole book based on a false premise on sets. Russell debunked his entire book with a paradox.
@@MrBeen992 The only paradox here is Howard.
@@jesse_cole I just offered a counterexample to your premise that Terrence " based his "entire paper on a misunderstanding" . That has occurred many times in intellectual history and is not "insane"
@MrBeen992 lol, no. You didn't offer a single counterpoint to the fact that TERRENCE based his book on a misunderstanding. The fact that mainstream ideas have been debunked in the past doesn't make 1x1 equal 2, dude. The burden of proof here is on Terrence to prove he's not wrong (and you, if you want to convince anyone that he's right). Do better.
@@jesse_cole LOL ytou still dont understand. I was trying to offer an argument that you dont have to be insane, as you suggest, to base your theory :"on a misunderstanding". Do you understand now, or are you as dense as Howard ?
terrence howard's multiplication sign accidentally rotated 45 degrees
Ya but Terrance knows that 45 degrees plus 45 degrees equals 180 degrees, which brings the sign right back to where it started as a multiplication sign. This means he was right all along to multiply instead of add…. This man is an absolute genius!
@@Sinnbad2145+45=90 bruh!
Not if you look past the problem, like patch Adam's... when he saw 8 fingers instead of 4.
I’m pretty sure it’s the wave conjugations are equal and opposite of the magnetism, which makes the void in the ether a no go, because quite simply there are no straight lines
@@cdubs5738 No. It's because you are not multiplying volumetrically and using the correct angles of incidence, then you generate the right frequencies corresponding to the appropriate element in the periodic table.
This is common sense man 🤦🏾♂️
There's no way Joe smoked enough weed for that episode
LMAF!!!!😂
Is he wrong?
Which part? Sound on point. Most of it.
No he didn't, but Terrence smoked too much....
@@germtimeyea, thats how we do science. "It sounds good". Brilliant!!
I’m waiting for the South Park episode 😂😂😂
Bro😂
When I first saw this video, that's exactly the first thought I had... "Matt and Trey are going to have a field day"😂
@@beastmaster415 Exactly!
That’ll be fun 😂🤣😂
It'll be epic
I like how he said I studied chemical engineering at SCSU but they don’t have a chemical engineering program at the university
It's a freaking prank. It's a new age scam he and some ghost writers came up with and in a couple of weeks they´ll come clean and say it was a social experiment. And they're trying to figure out who picks up on what. The chemical engineering program is one thing, and other people will pickp up other stuff.
in is mind he did everything
Lol fr??? hahaaaaa sounds about right!😂😂😂
He's an actor 😆
What he means is he studied a book while drinking coffwe in SCSU
"How many times did he score a goal in the soccer game today?"
"He scored once. One time."
1 goal, 1 time.
Terrence: "That makes two."
Golly, guess we need to call FIFA and change the records.
😂 fucking hilarious 😂
Time vs times makes the difference
How many ones did you use for your answer? 😂😂😂 so using the number of 1 twice equaling one is beyond God like brain work sir.
1 x 1 = 1 is equal to 1 = 1. In your chit example you are simply stating that one event (soccer game) had one player who scored a goal one time. The formulas for each are 1=1, 1=1, 1=1. Were two identical goals scored by two identical soccer players? If so, then, 1 x 1 = 1. Good luck finding a space and time bending machine to find two identical things of anything in existence. Peace
Identical twins?
When your uncle comes over after downing a bottle of wine and 2 Benadryls...
A bottle of whiskey more likely...
He’s obviously not drunk. Are you?
😂😂
@@user-kj6ne1dx3pagreed he's not drunk. But he is incredibly stupid.
😂😂😂😂😂
It's so hard out there for a pimp, that they are turning to physics to make a living
Made up physics
oh no you didn't. LOL.
MANE!!!!
And they SUCK at it too 🤣
I'm starting to think the pimping ain't easy for a different reason... The math sucks!
I sell apples for $1 each, the buyer takes 1 apple, I'm like: you owe me $2 🧐
😂 exactly!
He's not making it make sense.
What does 1 apple x 1 apple =
Hajajaha
gotta pay the tax lmfao XDDDD. its like when restaurant be showing the option of tipping on the credit card purchase.
@@kieror583 apple². Thing is you can add apples, so 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apple, but you cant multiply them because multiply an apple by apple makes no sense.
Howard just gave a speech via video at Emory Law School for the US Patent and Trademark Office. I’m just now seeing all this about his research online. I am just in awe. I had no idea what he was talking about and now I see why. I’m no scientist but before law school I got a science degree. Now I understand why I didn’t understand him. It didn’t make any sense.
😂😂
Generally, we tend to say that something doesn't make sense when we don't understand. I personally disagree with 1×1=2 but I'm still amazed by his bubble representation.
Let a x b = c;
Square both sides gives (a x b)^2 = c^2;
Expand left side (a x b) (a x b) = c^2; (a) (a x b^2) = a^2 x b^2 = c ^2;
Divide both sides by b^2 gives a^2 = c^2 / b^2;
Now let c = 2 and b =1 and take the Sqrt of both sides to solve for a
That is Sqrt (a^2) = a = Sqrt (c^2 / b^2) = Sqrt (2^2 / 1^2) = Sqrt (4 / 1) = Sqrt (4) = 2, thus a = 2;
Therefore when b = 1 and c = 2 then a = 2;
Now substitute those values for a, b, and c into the original algebraic equation:
a x b = c or in this case 2 x 1 = 2.
Therefore, if 2 x 1 is 2 then 1 x 1 can not be 2.
Conclusion Terrence Howard is WRONG and should find something else to do with his life! Fly fishing perhaps?
Can you write a mathematical equation to explain how magic works or give us a formula that we can work with to explain levitation. Your 1 dumb smart guy times yourself😂😂😂😂
Ok lets do this: if a camera captured a side angle of you looking into a mirror how many images of 'One' (as in person) would you see? Does it change the fact that is still just one person? So your sense of perception is off even by using all of that extra unnecessary stuff. 😂😂😂 goofy
@@Mathematica702this foolishness has nothing to do with a country.. this is an Actor.. we just had 2 high school girls in Louisiana find new theories independently and with 2 different processes!!! It was peer reviewed by Adult experts and it was real and accurate.. they are stars..
@@freindlyghost4829 You’re the goofball! 🤣 Try fly fishing next as you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Silly boy!
@@freindlyghost4829 what’s your level of maths? First grade? 🤣🧮🤣
"Breathing in and breathing out. The universe expands, but what about it breathing in?" -- This is the PERFECT example of Reasoning by Analogy instead of Reasoning by First Principles.
Thats… thats actually insane LMFAOOO reasoning with analogy can be useful in philosophy to elucidate moral truths and such… they are NOT useful in physics for determining how the universe works. Youre conflating analogy with thought experiment and even then, thought experiments are meaningless without data and research. You cabt just say “well people breath in and out, therefore the universe has to also expand and contract” -thats incredibly silly
@@Runthemjewels exactly brother - dude is loco
@@xalian17smh you buffons listened and believed in a man that sat in a wheelchair for 55 years, teaching you about physics, the cosmos and math...
Couldnt talk , relied on a machine to do the talking for him and you fools believed everything that was coming out of that machine( no questions asked)....
I realizer a long time ago that it doesnt matter what information is being put out there. If a Yt man isnt the voice of it, then there will be push back...even if hes crippled ,voiceless without any motor skill and plug up to AI machine. As long as he's Yt , you'd bite
He’s saying that not because it’s an analogy, he’s referring to how the universe mirrors the same structure in different scales, i.e. fractals, etc.
@@PrimalAscensionplease watch professor dave video on howard and stfu. Or go study
the dramatic mood music and motion graphics make this even funnier 😂
😂😂
He says, "if you have a 1 and then "add" a 1 with a multiplication sign, what happened to the one you added"???🤣🤣
multiplication sign is a mathematical expression. what if he used a different word instead of "add a 1".. semantics. guy needs to learn discrete mathematics, number theory, and such. but i doubt he will
@@blackspirit1129explain 3x1?
Think about multiplication as a process... Takes the contents of a container and evaluate them using counting...So imagine you have a jar that has a number in it... something x something...( Some number of jars ) & ( some number of objects inside the jar)...So 1 x 1...( One jar ) & ( Some number of objects inside )...1 jar--1object_in_each_jar= 1 object....2jars--2objects_in_each_jar = 4 objects...3jars--1object_ib_each_jar = 3 objects...
@@alexnowicki286 just write it as a sum, that can be done with multiplication. so 3*1=(0+1+1+1). or rather the sum of 1, with the limits being 0 and 3. 3*1=(0+1+1+1)=3. its even still true if you multiply with other numbers. for example 3*3=9, or 3*(0+1+1+1)=(0+3+3+3)=9. the same can be done with 1*1=(0+1)=1. 3*1=3*(0+1)=3. it even works if you break it down further. 3*3=(0+1+1+1)*(0+1+1+1)=(0+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)=9. just write multiplication as a sum so you cant be confused by the term "multiplication".
He basically explained adding 😅
I will admit he had me going for awhile but then I slapped myself
Same here lol
😂😂😂😂😂
You went back to sleep!
he'd get on really well with Deepak Chopra
I feel like some of what he says has merit but i cant tell i feel like im either too dumb to understand what hes saying or it makes absolutely no sense in general lol
He said...
"1x1 can be one if u only see it one time but as soon as u ADD the second one"
He just said add another 1....
Your not adding another 1. The second one is describing how many times ur seeing the first one that exists.
ITS A DESCRPTIVE NUMERAL SAYING HOW MANY TIMES UR SEEING THE NUMBER THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS.
exactly… your taking the number 1 , one time. you get 1.
Take the 1 away from the equation and replace it with a cigarette. If you have 1 cigarette and MULTIPLY it by itself, what would you have? 2 cigarettes right? 🤔
Then it shouldn't be 1x1...It should be 1x0 if we are only looking at the 1 exclusively 😂. Believe it or not T.Howard is correct...the minute you add a multiplying factor of another 1(1×1),it can't stand still because it's defeating it's own purpose of multiplying...
@@GWAREBEL That is not how cigarettes work sir
If you are not joking do you understand what a logical fallacy is?
What is 1x0.1 terrence? What about 1x0.5, or even pretty wild 1x0.9? The answers are (0.1, 0.5, 0.9) how does 1x1 magically change the trend? Even use 2x1, it equals 2, how the fuck does 1x1 equal the same as 2x1?
He got you talking about it! (and me, talking about you talking about it) pretty clever I would say.
And mr too!😂
@@charleshorseman55 How is that clever? Or is this sarcasm
@@asdfg19923 There are people waiting for celebrities to lead their studies.
2x1 should =4
It was Einstein who said "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Seems the haters and naysayers are unconsciously stuck in the same thinking that created this issue. Open mind, is a positive, progressive and necessary for advancement. Without Terrences 'attitude' and willingness to think for himself, outside the box and every inventor in history before him, we'd still be hunter gatherers. Consider that for a moment.
Thinking outside the box isn't hard. Thinking well, thinking correctly outside the box is hard.
Exactly. It’s important to question all beliefs and assumptions. That’s what true science is supposed to be all about. Versus this modern day, scientism where people stay locked in a box of preconceived notions and believe them as if they were a religion, not to be questioned.
@@EvolutionOfMan The only people who believe that science is a kind of religion are the scientifically illiterate. Despite the commonly held belief, there definitely are stupid questions.
Sounds like Neil went into full Professor mode when reading TH's paper. Red pen??🤣🤣
Lol
He should've shredded it and sent back a bag of confetti... 🤨
was super generous and caring of him honestly. too bad old terry of the famous terryology is such a blind narcissist
@@mr.knowitall6440why tho? Isn’t science discussion?
Sometimes the professor runs into a student that knows something that he/she doesn’t know, and finds it hard to accept. This has happened all down through history. Does anyone remember Linus Pauling and vitamin C, and how he was trashed for years. I believe that instead of castigating the person we should research what he/she is proposing.
There is a confusion of the semantic English meaning of „multiply“ with the mathematical definition of multiplication. „To multiply“ in English means „to make more, to increase in quantity“. But that is not the definition of mathematical multiplication, which is simply a short form of addition to zero. The definition of mathematical multiplication of whole numbers A and B is: A indicates the number of times of B added to 0. If you apply this definition you arrive at 1 x 2 = „the number 2 added one time to 0“, 2 x 2 = „the number 2 added two times to 0“.
You can of course just say, I am going to define multiplication the same way for all other cases but the number 1. But this is because you confuse semantics and mathematical operations. And you cannot have a unified definition of your ‚new‘ notation.
Well said.
EXACTLY, so you CAN'T by DEFINITION 'multiply' by ONE--- THAT is NOT 'multiplying'
@@technoweasel8937 you confuse the English meaning with the mathematical definition. The latter does not have to match you understanding of the English word ‚multiply‘. By the way, this confusion you have arises in English but not in other languages.
Energy times Energy,????
@@saschas2531 lol
The multiplication operation of 1 multiplied by 1 resulting in 1 is a fundamental property of multiplication known as the multiplicative identity property. In mathematics, the multiplicative identity property states that any number multiplied by 1 will equal the original number. This property applies to all numbers, not just 1.
So, when we say 1 multiplied by 1 is equal to 1, we are essentially stating that when you multiply any number by 1, the result will be the original number itself. This property helps maintain consistency in mathematical operations and is a fundamental concept in arithmetic.
So why do you think this man is trying so fervently to convince us we’ve been wrong all these years?! RUclips has helped me realize I haven’t been walking right, sitting correctly, and , of course, my misconception of basic mathematical principles!😂😂 God bless us all!😊
@Horgan5905r Explain how 1x1 would give you 2? If you have a dog showing up one time, where tf do your get two dogs from? Is this an infinite dog glitch?
@@Horgan5905r I didn’t think I would hear anyone support this…wrong again!🤣
You very word
Now try and type that after smoking some crazy amounts of crack or whatever this guy is on.
Terrence Howard and the ongoing debate: 1 X 1 = 2
Addition symbol sitting quietly in the corner: Oh so they've forgotten me already
For those of you that are a bit confused about multiplication with 0's and 1's, here it's explained in easy to understand terms.
How can 1 x 0 = 0? If you have 1 apple and give it 0 times to your grandma, how many apples did your grandma receive from you? She received 0 apples.
How can 0 x 1 = 0? If you have 0 apples, and give it to your grandma 1 time, how many apples did your grandma receive from you? One again, she received 0 apples.
How can 1 x 1 = 1? If you have 1 apple, and give it your grandma 1 time, how many apples did your grandma receive from you? She received 1 apple.
2 groups of 2 apples is 4 apples. 4 groups of 4 apples is 16. 1 group of 1 apple is 1 apple. how hard is that? Draw circles for groups if you can't visualize it.
If I deliver 5 pizzas to you 3 times today then you get 15 pizzas. If I deliver you 5 pizzas two times today then you get 10 pizzas. If I deliver you 5 pizzas one time then you get 5 pizzas. If I try to deliver you 5 pizzas zero times today (my car breaks down) then you get zero pizzas, not 5. Multiplication is how many times the event occurs, hence the x symbol.
Group by definition is “more than 1”.. you can’t group 1, it’s just 1..
From what I'm reading online in comments, apparently there are a scary number of people too stupid to grasp something so simple lol
@@MarcGyverItno you are too close minded and didn’t listen to the video lol
LOL yep. He doesnt understand simple multiplication. He is thinking too deep instead of just looking at the basic fundamentals of math. He's just dropping names. Nothing more.
@@TheBoogieman32 1x1 = 1²
1x2=3?
Hahaahaha, this was my first thought.....
1*1=3
NONSENSE.
Its more. Cause the energy of 2, is more than 1, so its actually 4. 1 is 1, and 2 is the doble, and 3 is tripple. Maybe its 5? Idk, i didnt learn howwiemath. I think the consept is that you can make it whatever you want. Just like a guy with a dick and boobs is a girl
1x1=2
The 1 * 1 = 2 business is the very first thing in Howard's book, and he's demonstrably wrong from the get-go. He says:
_If 4/2 is the inverse operation of 2 x 2 = 4_
_Then it would naturally follow that 2/1 is the inverse operation of 1 x 1 = 2_
But the inverse of 2 * 2 = 4 is not simply 4/2, it is 4/2 _= 2_ . *He left out the quotient,* and what that means is that the inverse of 2/1 = 2 is 1 * _2_ = 2, not 1 * 1 = 2. Squaring the denominator of a fraction is NOT how you derive its inverse. E.g., the inverse of 10/2 = 5 is 5 * 2 = 10, not 2 * 2 = 10.
I.e., a/b = c is the inverse of c * b = a. His premise is false.
Amazing that some people are buying what he's selling.
Great explanation of the flaw in Terrence's logic in regards to 1x1. I applaud you. However, he is saying a lot more than that. He can be misguided on 1x1 and be correct on many of his other statements. No one is perfectly right or wrong. You have to discern each statement, to determine their validity. Most people are more interested and intrigued by his other statements and what he has actually produced; than just 1x1 = 2.
@@Phillipe1969 For sure, but he chose to entitle his book "1 x 1 = 2", and he starts with that flawed premise as an argument for why you should trust him instead of well-established and proven math concepts. And he follows his "proof" with this on page 2:
_"Dear World, I have been told by many that the releasing of this truth may pose certain challenges in my life. For there are many institutions that this truth will be viewed as disruptive to their system of profit and gains."_
So, he went all in on his flawed premise.
That said, I watched all 4 hours of the JRE podcast with him and Eric Weinstein, and I thought Weinstein did a great job of pointing out the flaws while respecting the value he found. He rightly pointed out that some of Howard's ideas about engineering have merit but that Howard makes multiple claims related to math that are just patently false.
When I first listened to Howard's ideas, his combination of word salad with his flawed premise made me dismissive of his ideas, but Weinstein's JRE appearance showed me that there were some small nuggets worth paying attention to.
The visual light spectrum only makes up 0.0035% out of the whole Electromagnetic Spectrum...we are still literally blind.
its less btw
Ooooook that means we believe everything a dude dreamed and said on a comedians podcast?? I feel like everyone's forgotten Joe Rogan is a stand up comedian not the basis for science and fact. He just let's people run wild for the entertainment factor. Even he was questioning Terrence. He remembers being in the womb. That's INSANE talk. Also basically said he was Einstein in a prior life like dude is coked outta his gourd.
He's Iron man
@@adriansanchez5657No he is Tony Stark...No More Brilliant
Light and optics engineer. We have sensors for the rest of the spectrum. and we understand how light works pretty fucking well across the spectrum.
In the equation 1X1, there is only one number there, which is '1'. The other is not a number, but rather an object in which the number of 1 is acting upon.
Perfectly said
The way I explain it to my kids: the number of things times the number of groups is the product, so one group of one thing is one.
@SanityTV_Last_Sane_Man_Alive Well said. Set theory is one of the most interesting things known to creation. Thanks
3 x 4 = 0 + 3 +3 + 3 +3 ; 3 X 4 = 0 + 4 + 4 +4 ;; 1 +1 = 0 =1
1 x 1 = 1 regardless of how much Ayahuasca you're drinking
Yea says the one who's speaking outside their azz
But, there is no spoon... 1 is merely a construct of consciousness. Everything is a wave, separated by awareness. We're splitting hairs and calling it science, politics, religion, etc.
Read the proof. And think. How does a single cell instantaneously multiply into 2? Like an embryo growing to 2x then 4x etc cells into a baby? There is a higher dimension an octave above that brings physical things into existence. This channel has other videos breaking this down. (I think there was an experiment with cancer cells and how they manifested in a group of women.
Anyway, the higher dimension manifests the “gravity”. Gravity is not a result of physical mass, like previously believed. We now know it can be revered at local points. It’s connected to the electrical field that joins the dimensions. Go read the proof and see how it leads to explanations of many phenomena unexplained or poorly explained because the Aether was removed from equation. The math and science we’re using is based on a 2D flat Cartesian model BECAUSE the early philoso-scientists believed the earth/universe was FLAT. Lookup flower of life, also read the proof for 1x1. Good stuff
The X in the equation means to multiply the said object. You can't have it both ways. You could say 1 always equals 1 and can't be divided.
However in science we know that's also false. Hence the term Division Wave Multiplexing. This type of technique enables bidirectional communications over a single strand of fiber and it's commonly known that anything can be divided.
@@richhyltona single cell doesn’t instantaneously multiply into two it undergoes mitosis, which occurs after a series of cellular functions that prepares the cell for mitosis. DNA is replicated in S phase and other important cell growth occurs during the G1 and G2 phases. Then chromosomes compact, the nuclear lamina breaks down, the mitotic spindle forms, and microtubules pull the chromosomes apart as an actin contractile ring separate the two cells in cytokinesis. No need for higher dimensions here, just explainable physical phenomena.
In mathematics, the number 1 acts as a multiplicative identity. This means that multiplying any number by 1 results in the original number itself. So, 1 * 1 = 1 because 1 is being multiplied by itself, essentially resulting in itself.
So then according to your logic of 1 being a multiplicative indicator 1x1=1 would have to be removed from multiplication, or stated as 1x1=x.
Terrence is saying that the word multiplication automatically means “more” than itself
@@kingdavid5525agreed the definition of multiply is to increase. What he's saying makes sense.
@@yeshuaistheway how the fuck does a colloquial definition of "multiply" override mathematical axioms.
Hahaha so 2+0 doesnt equal 2 because the + symbol means you have to add something? Whats the definition of addition? You cant add zero? Also the definition of multiple is not increase more than itself. 4 X 0.5 = 2 which is a decrease genuis 😂😂😂
Put aside personal opinions about what Terrence said, this is an incredible work of editing and narration. Amazing video!
The patient died, but the operation was a brilliant success!
His content ist still delusional and wrong😂
@@herrh.5384 do cells multiply or add?
@@riely there is no difference, multiplication means to add the numbers as often as the nominant tells you. 3x1= 1+1+1=3. 1x1 is the same as 1=1. you seem not to understand it either?
@@herrh.5384 those are set values by a human NOT the universe
Holy smokes, we got actors trying to tell us our Bachelor degrees aren’t worth the paper they’re written on lol!! Any number multiplied by 1 equals itself..that means there’s only one number in the equation. If there’s a number multiplied by zero, then there is no number in the equation. Pretty simple stuff bro
BA's and BS's don't prove intelligence. They only recognize the fact that you invested time and money toward education. You graduate by passing the prescribed curriculum.There are masses of people that have been miseducated 🥸 and lied 🤥 to their entire lives by flawed systems designed by a select few. Some people like Terrence Howard are genuinely intelligent. They can analyze, research and test theories because of their interest in subjects. Just think 🤔of the 🧐 geniuses🤓 that decided to build some of our nuclear power plants near and on known earthquake fault lines.
What irritates me is that astrophysicists who have studied the physical properties and behavior of celestial objects using advanced mathematical and scientific techniques to better understand the formation, evolution, and behavior of galaxies, stars, planets, and other celestial bodies have said Howard is mistaken in his black hole models. Yet laymen with the barest understanding of black holes are saying that Terrance Howard has advanced concepts that need to be considered. Why? because he talks a good line, like a good actor would.
Breterson a lot of ur bsc is strit bull it not worth the paper its written on
U are tought that current in a battery flow from positive to negative in Battery n that a total lie the hot leg of the battrey is negative nut an establush Right habd rules say uppersit that why all high diller car have Positive ground n some airplanes so with all the bs of ut bsc what is it worth look at medicine how much truth is tough to the young interns about diets and sude effect of pharmaceutical which meant poison why is it you need a licensed of drugs n poison to operate a pharmacy n a Barr or a spirit licenson
@@donmiller2908Laymen are persuaded by charisma, scientists are persuaded by evidence.
Yes, but if you had imaginary, honorary Doctorate Degrees in Afrophysics and Quantum Equity, you'd understand it all very clearly... 🧐🤔🤯
I've attempted to read the draft of your book. The first page says, "If 4/2 is the inverse operation of 2x2=4, then it would naturally follow that 2/1 is the inverse of 1×1=2".
Some literature for you:
If four items are split into two sets, then two sets remain that have two items. An independent number of items are subsequently subtracted from my field of vision, memory, relevance, etc according to the number of instances I have observed the number of items. So yes, if I see two items and at one point decide to categorize them, then notice another instance where i have categorized what happen to be another two items, I would reflect that the number of times I have categorized items in a set, there happened to be four total items between the two times I have applied them to some category.
Two items "split" into one group still provides the observation of two items. One item observed as one set in one instance does not yield two items. It yields one item in one set, once only (or perhaps since I just said "one" three times, then that means 1x1x1=3).
You have grossly misconstrued the context of value. Value is not doubled in the same way between an item added to an item and a set being added to an item. This is why multiplication does contain the process of addition, but repeatedly. If it only happens to be repeated one time, then the expression of this observation ensures accuracy of both the quantity of the item and the quantity of repetition that the item is observed.
Moral of the story: I have waisted a few precious minutes of my life to learn by the first page that yes, you are actually serious.
You "attempted to read" it?
Oh, I see, he is reasoning by some weird anal/ogy!
"Since 4/2=2*2=sqr(2)=4, then 2/1=1*1=sqr(1)=2"!?
But then he turns around and says (that) sqrt(2) is not 1 butt 2!?
Oh, now he really is just taking the piss.
@@ainnochaim9450 Bravery
* wasted
I couldn't believe that what you quoted was actually what he wrote because it's so mind-numbingly ignorant, so I looked at his book's first page... and there it is 😳.
I'll offer an even simpler explanation than you did. His whole premise is wrong. The inverse of 2 * 2 = 4 is not simply 4/2, it is 4/2 _= 2_ . *He left out the quotient,* and what that means is that the inverse of 2/1 = 2 is 1 * _2_ = 2, not 1 * 1 = 2.
I.e., a/b = c is the inverse of c * b = a. Incredible that anyone would take this guy seriously.
Its amazing to me that people can hear how eloquently this man speaks and how he quotes his knowledge but still want call him crazy. Just goes to show most people have never had an original thought in their lives everything has been told to them
@amirparsi4165 If all you got from Terrance was his controversial statement of 1x1 not being 1 just shows how little intelligence you have yourself. If you listen and do research into what he is talking about you would be amazed. But you probably haven't learned anything outside of mainstream academia
You get it too.
What's so eloquent about what he says? I with my master's degree on engineering only keep hearing links between concepts that have nothing to do with eachother and drawings of geometrical shapes without any meaning, let alone any real world application. You are such a troll
Your right
I agree. Terrence should be president, he is the leader that America doesn't know it needs to bring it back to its former glory.
It’s funny that in this clip Terrence Howard says we never breathe in twice before breathing out. But we do, and we do it very often. It has a calming effect, taking us out of the sympathetic nervous system’s fight or flight mode and into the parasympathetic nervous system.
According to Dr. Andrew Huberman it’s what’s called, “the physiological sigh”.
If you start the equation wrong "1x1 = 2" it's all downhill "Wrong" after that. If I needed to drive South to Benson St. but I went north, there is no way to get there unless I turned some corners (back tracked) or drove around the World to get back to that point. which would be unnecessary.
hmmm... Multiply is just adding sets of numbers instead of adding individual numbers.... If he wants to define the relationship of numbers in some new way, that's fine, call it "Terrenceification "or something. But, it's not multiplication.
This is only for real values between 1 and 2. DOES IT MAKE SENSE that multiplying them can NEVER even get to 2?
I AM WAITING. Also, since these are REAL VALUES b/w 1 and 2, it's odd that they CAN never be more than their totaled sum right? GENIUS?
I mean now, since the math on them works; still can't get them always over the totaled sums, but there are several to try - YOU CANNOT get less than them added, not all of them are them same as when added YOU TRY IT - GENIUS take your armchair - GENIUS!
and YOU CANNOT get them to 4.
WHAT IS 2 x 2? And 1. anything but 0'z to infinity, ANYTHING is more than 1 -THNKING? SO IT NEVER MAKES SENSE that multiplying VALUES -get what math represents, GENIUS - that are over 1 and less than 2 cannot reach even 2! GET THAT?,
@@joshuabloecker4364 WTF are you talking about, You can't even form a comprehensible paragraph how do you think you understand math. 2x1=2 you can test multiplication. Take 10 blocks put them in a row then take blocks and 9 more down from each row now you have 10 blocks across and 10 blocks down. 10x10 is 100 you have 100 blocks, count them its 100. now take 2 blocks and and go 2 blocks down 2x2 is 4 count them its 4 blocks. Now take 1 block 1x1 is 1 count the blocks, its 1 block. This how multiplication works and how we know 1x1 is 1 not 2.
1.81 x 1.54 Next step: .181 + .154 = 3.35
But the calculator, right? & this is only for values b/w 1 and 2 - it will always work better than saying multiplying in this case means never even get to two. WHEN ADDING gets you past 2. GET IT. NO. IT IS NOT "multiplying is adding"; it's a more logical answer.
As a chemist I gotta say the term “it’s a lie” is so important. Science isn’t the key to everything…it’s us just trying to understand the world around us. Someone who read a 101 level book who thinks that they know everything is literally the opposite of what we call the principle of science.
T Howard is getting the concept of addition and multiplication confused. 1x1=1, 1X2=2 , 1X3=3, 1X20=20, 1X50=50, 1X100=100, 1X1000=1000. In this world when the system of multiplication was setup the 1st rule was that anything times it self (which is 1) will be itself. So technically multiplication doesn't begin its usefulness until a number is being multiplied by 2 or greater. Even 0 X 1 = 0, In short anything times 1 is a mirror of itself. So maybe taking 1 out of the multiplication system will help Mr. Howard.
Thats more like i understand it. 1x1=1 isn´t wrong, its just pointless. Multiply anything with 1 is simply pointless, so when he says it shouldn´t be part of the multiplication table, he isn´t wrong. It shouldn´t be because its a waste and serves no purpose. Doesn´t really harm someone either i would like to say, but i am not so sure anymore considering Mr.Howard. 1x1=1 has seriously confused him it seems.
The conclusion that 1x1=2 though, that makes no sense to me at all.
@@hansoerteras3983 I agree. Have you ever heard a music band singer say "Hit me 1 time"? They are asking basically to have 1 of something done 1 time. So lets say the drummer will hit the drums 1 time, not twice. So, 1X1 =1 not 2 Mr. Howard...lol
By that explanation I understand how 0x1 = 0 but wouldn’t 1x0=1 ?
@@10thlaw In basic multiplication it doesn't matter if the positions are switched. The results will be the same.
@@10thlaw i give you 1 bag of 0 lolly= You have 0 Lolly.
I give you 0 bag of 1 lolly= You still have 0 Lolly
I give you 1 bag of 1 lolly= You have 1 Lolly
I give you 2 bags of 1 Lolly= You have 2 lollies
I give you 1 bag of 2 lollies = You have 2 lollies
I give you 2 bags of 2 lollies= you have 4 lollies
3 bags of 3 lollies=9 lollies
4 of 4 lollies=16 lollies
4x5=20
1x0=0, 0x1=0, 1x1=1, 1x2=2,2x1=2, 2x2=4 etc......
If 2 x 2 = 4, meaning two, two times is 4, then 1 x 1 = 1 is because one, one time equals, one. Theres only one, it doesnt get multiplied. One, one time is one.
Two, two times, is four.
Yes. I agree but that doesn't fit within the laws of mathematics.
You are not wrong here.
However, what TH is trying to explain is that our current definition of multiplication is incorrect, or incomplete. Don't think of the x, shown in 1 x 1, as TIMES as in, 1 set of 1. TIMES should only be used when observing physical objects, as a way to describe how many of something there are. It's a statistical function.
Multiplication is a short-hand way of showing addition. Therefore, you should be able to get the same answer from both multiplication and the relative sum, or addition.
The original Latin definition of 'multiply' is 'to increase'. So, if we were to say "1 'increased by the magnitude' of 1", this would equal 2 because it is inherently the same as 1 + 1, (1 x 1 = 1 + 1). With this definition everything else in the multiplication table gives the same answers we already know, apart from anything multiplied by 1 or 0. An example would be, "1 'increased by the magnitude' of 0", which would give the answer of 1 because it is not being increased and is fundamentally the same as 1+0 (1 x 0 = 1 + 0).
Currently, you can take any other number in the multiplication table, convert it to a sum of addition and it works, apart from anything multiplied by 1 or 0. For example, 3 x 3 = 9. As an addition sum this would be written as, 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 (3 x 3 = 3 + 3 + 3).
We know that 1 + 1 = 2, so why does 1 x 1, not equal 2? It's because our current definition is incorrect/incomplete.
@@EIRW1Z The multiplication operation of 1 multiplied by 1 resulting in 1 is a fundamental property of multiplication known as the multiplicative identity property. In mathematics, the multiplicative identity property states that any number multiplied by 1 will equal the original number. This property applies to all numbers, not just 1.
So, when we say 1 multiplied by 1 is equal to 1, we are essentially stating that when you multiply any number by 1, the result will be the original number itself. This property helps maintain consistency in mathematical operations and is a fundamental concept in arithmetic.
Thinking math has to follow grammar is a linguistic fallacy. Linguistics and mathematics are two different domains.
@@LlonirTS I fully understand the concept of the multiplicative identity property. I'm also not disagreeing with it. It works for certain applications, such as statistics, as I already mentioned. What I do have a problem with, something you have also clearly failed to recognise, is that, at some point, someone had a thought, then spoke the multiplicative identity property into existence. So, in reality, linguistics has everything to do with mathematics, as does thought.
Also, the multiplicative identity property does not apply to other numbers, it only applies when multiplying by the number 1 and also 0. So it does not provide consistency at all. If it were consistent, it would apply to all numbers, would it not? Seems strange to me to have a universal rule for 1 thing and not the others. Unless, it is so that observable objects can be grouped together to be counted, which makes it a statistical principle and also the reason the concept was created in the first place.
Perhaps, then, it should be separated from all other mathematics and only apply when observing for statistical analysis.
(1 x 1 =1) = (1 = 1)
It's strange to look at. Kind of like the whole dividing by zero conundrum. Every other multiplication of itself is a growth except this one.
Half the people in the comment section disrespecting Terrence never even heard of Erwin Schrödinger before this clip.....😂😂😂
Anybody old enough to drive knows about the Shrodingers cat thought expirement. If you're trying to use that as an example of how Terrence is correct then you need to go get re-education.
@@astronomicalreason9807Terence has patents and copyrights to his ideas and you don't. Hmm! Who should I trust you or Terence?
He’s clearly speaking in terms of analogy and it’s actually a decent thought if you evaluate it. People are quick to jump on something if it makes them feel smart debunking it.
Every single adult that can drive understands why 1x1=1
But if you interpret the question differently in speech or writing then it is interesting to WHY it is
No it isn't, it's just stupid.
He’s an actor, not a scientist. Please keep that in mind when taking unsubstantiated claims at face value because he just sounds like he knows what he’s talking about.
But he doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about. He sounds like a bipolar egomaniac with a god complex.
@@TheBeanGreen yes, but to people with below average or possibly even average IQ he sounds smart. these kind of people will just recoil and double down in their beliefs if you tell them they're wrong. I mean that's why their so dumb in the first place. It's better to try to lead them into finding the answer on their own, and if that doesn't work, just try to say it very nicely.
Why can’t he be both an actor and scientist 😒 stupid goofy
An actor with patents and a you who has none of that is the smart one. Are from Col0rad0? We hear the “grass” is great over there 😂
@@RochusMr "with patents' lol....
0:53 as soon as I saw "remember the basic laws of common sense", I knew it was over
Meaning what???
@@freindlyghost4829 "common sense" is literally just people's feelings that they cant justify with logic.
“Multiplication means to make more and increase in number”
Umm, no? Multiplication is counting groups of numbers. 1x2 is saying 1 group of 2. 2x2 is 2 groups of 2, and so on.
This man doesn’t even understand basic algebra and people saying he’s right are also idiots.
Ngl ur comment reminded me how dumb i am
You don't call someone an idiot because he has an opposing view. It's his view. Respect it. That's what scholarship is all about. Every scholar has had a thesis thrown out, not because they are idiots but they couldn't convince others. Some thrown out views came back to be the accepted view.
@@meztv8602I would bet my life that this is a view that will never be accepted. What he is encouraging is dangerous behaviour; don’t be angry when people aren’t happy with his bullshit.
@@HiddenBush64DING DING DING RIGHT ANSWER!!! 💯💯 TOXIC POSITIVITY is fking up the world
@@HiddenBush64na metztv is right dude this has happened throughout history time and time and again. I wouldn’t bet your life on it. They would’ve bet their life that the earth was flat not too long ago, or the possibility of talking to someone miles away through electromagnetic waves in the air
The red lining reminds me of when I was preparing my capstone for my undergrad. It’s just a person who’s helping you clarify your ideas and create more accuracy in your discovery and entire point to follow. Little things become big things. I wouldn’t take that for granted.
Terrence Howard did indeed apply for three patents in the United States. However, none of these applications resulted in granted patents. It’s worth noting that the patent filing process doesn’t verify whether the invention works or makes sense; it simply ensures that no one else has claimed the same patent before. So, filing a patent doesn’t necessarily mean the invention is valid or functional. Some of Howard’s patent applications may have been filed under the name “T. Dashon Howard,” and a few of those applications were granted.
I had some dude literally tell me that the patent office tests out these patents and they must work in a lab before the patent is granted hahahahahaha
Its rigged.
@@spikenomoon Howard describes patenting like he was scammed by an invention promotion or patent company for over a quarter million $.
@@soulcapitalist6204 No doubt. If this was true he would own Fox.
All he did was patent the shapes. If you look at patent law or guidelines. You don’t need testing or even a prototype. You just have to have an idea that’s new, useful, or statutory. All he did was not prove a theory correct, he just patient those shapes and models.
As a grade 12 student, literally all of these “scientific ideas” are completely unrelated and it’s hilarious 😂. He is trying to justify his ego and cult with science but the science is made up, his ego and cult are real.
As a 12 grade student, you know shit lol. Stfu and go study some gender studies in college... I'm sure they will gladly steal your money
Exactly it's like a regurgitation of "sciency things', complete gibberish.
Terrence Howard is right!
@@drelurebanks6042 Nice one troll.
@@drelurebanks6042 bait
This is almost laughable
Any number multiplied by 1 will give you that number right??
2 * 1 = 2
4 * 1 = 4
And so on
So why does that have to change just because the number being multiplied is 1
Also, multiplication basically just shows you how many time a number appears in the answer like
4 * 2 = 8
Because 4 appears in 8 two times
2 * 1 = 2
Because 2 appears in 2 one time
So by that logic,
1 * 1 = 1
Because 1 appears in 1 one time.
As simple as that
People are getting stuck on that, but what you really need to understand is what he was getting at.
NO ACTION OCCURS IN ETHER. There's ALWAYS a REACTION.
So with one action, there's actually TWO.
With electricity, there's magnetism. When you breathe in, you have to. breath it. When you stretch a rubber band, there's forces trying to draw you back in. When you throw a ball, gravity pulls it down.
@@defrank1870Those are explained by different equations 🤡
Bruh, he really thinks multiplication automatically means "more" without thinking how it can be less, for example, 1×0.5 ... Which equals *drum roll* 0.5, which is less. SHOCKER, I know.
Here's something else. Take your answer 0.5 and add to the 0.5 in the problem, and you end up with the 1 you started! Wow, it seemingly balances, doesn't it?!
He may not be right about 1 x1 =2. But that doesn’t mean everything else is wrong. We need people that think differently to figure out problems we haven’t been able to solve before. Am I right? Regardless of right or wrong this man should not be criticized. We need people to be able to speak freely about their ideas of how to solve problems so that someone who has the answer isn’t scared to speak up.
Agreed. I'm more interested in his computer simulation that can accurately predict planetary and galactic models using his lynchpin theory. Specifically, I'm curious if the code uses 1x1=2 as a logic structure. If not, separate the wheat from the chaff and keep moving forward.
We complicate everything. We changed the 13 month / 28 day lunar calendar to the 12 month/ each month has a different number of days Gregoroan calendar. For what? Just so that someone can attach thier name to it and get credit for it. I'm going to find and read his treatise this week. Very interesting stuff!
I have been into this 13 months calendar investigation for a long time. Gathering information. And I believe this is something that needs to be rectify too to get us into the normal cycles of nature. Any important source of info in this matter that you can share with me?
They got rid of it to remove your consciousness away from the cycles or patterns of life.
Look up the 432 vs 440 tuning issue and decide for yourself 👍
you people are proof how uneducated the average person is. Everything is not a conspiracy
Facts
Scientists and researchers have to have their stuff criticized when it’s peer reviewed, by Terrance Howard calls it “attacking”.
Peer reviews usually have logical rebuttals that confront the idea head on and not attack the studies it may have been inspired from or whom
💤💤💤💤 you're so braindead you got me falling asleep
Scientist don’t waste their time peer reviewing the incoherent ramblings of narcissists. Dudes gonna break an arm jerking himself off.
Howard is what an inspired person with just above average intelligence looks like, it's enough to fool and connect well with average people, but makes actually intelligent people roll their eyes
He has over 90 patents, I think he knows what he's talking about
Wait until he discovers the power of zero.
I see people taking a very strong stance on this guy. Some absolutely despise his theory and others think it's the new era of terriology. There is a middle ground here. He's obviously smart and he has admitted that his whole theory comes through intuition and not classical education. This makes the academics furious and the spiritualist rejoice. Maybe he has some useful, applicable knowledge but needs to be mentored by someone who can fill in the gaps of his intuitive knowledge. Maybe they can convince him he's completely wrong. But let's give it a break for a while and let it play out before we judge either way.
I agree, I'd love to see him sit down with some major high level intellects
Well, when you read the ones praising him, and notice they all have terrible grammar and names like "lashandawilliams345", you can clearly see the situation that's going on.
I think at first I saw him with ridicule on the basis of basic arithmetic. But as I watched the video, the guy is talking abbout balancing act. Making for each one (force, entity in the universe) there has to be another balancing one, hence 1*1=2.
He further adds, the universe is not expanding but there is another force which is balancing it.
He uses this analogy to justify 1+1 or 1*1 both equals 2.
Assumptions can be dangerous sometimes. I think despite crude or not, there might be some merit on what he says.
@@Hamromerochannelthe growing lack of faith in logic and science is profoundly confusing to anyone with a brain
I like turtles
Me three
From a mathematician's perspective it is because 1 is the multiplactive identity of the real numbers. This os basic abstract algebra...Let "e" denote the identity of a group with operation "°". Let "a" be an element within this group. Then we have a°e=a, e°a=a, e°e=e. There are many more properties, but these are the relevant ones. So take the real numbers (the group) under multiplication (the operation). Let "a" be an element of the real numbers. Then a×1=a, 1×a=a and 1×1=1. I mean, sure, you could rewrite your definition of multiplication if it doesn't make sense to you.....but then youd have to rewrite group theory and abstract algebra...not so easy to do especially since it explains why all of these operations work the way they do!
KNOWLEDGE!🙏😁
Thank you for this CORRECT answer.
😂😎🙏😉👌
What.
1 x a =1a?
@@johnathanmandrake7240 1 times anything (in this case "a") is just that something (again, "a"). 1 x a = a.
if you pull 1 apple out of a basket 1 time... you have 1 apple.. come on dude...😂
Fascinating I can listen to Terrence all day. He needs an audio book.
I agree!!! I’d learn all types of cool things just to listen to him😂
He's saying nothing but bs haha
@@armandomorelos2500 & you're speaking like a jackass. Terrence knows what he's talking about, better him talking about physics than Hollywood filth.
he needs a mental institute, this guy is fucking insane !!! please go watch professor dave explains, terrence howard is a complete narcissist, don't fall into that trap also please. You are brighter than that !!! he uses hundreds of complicated words and sentences to make it look like he knows what he is talking about but when you really decompose it and look for what the words he is saying means, you realize how much bullshit goes out of his mouth.
He misunderstands many critical scientific issues. He conflates ideas and areas of science that are not directly related. Much of it is just pseudoscientific gobbledygook or supernatural assertions. And lastly, there is no such thing as "wave conjugations" and straight lines were not an outcome of a belief in a flat earth.
The way they’re treating Terrence. Howard is how they treated Dr. King in his prime. He died. Then he got his holiday. To challenge the status quo makes you a madman.
Being delusional makes you a madman.
sir stop. putting terrance howard in the same sentence as Dr king is insane !
Don’t breed.
Terrence Howard totally lost it when Tony Stark let Don Cheadle test drive War Machine
I dunno... is it really necessary to have so many rotors on a drone when 3 or 4 is enough?
Using this allegedly flawed science were able to push a 141 metric ton object into space. Can't wait to see what we achieve with "Terryology".
we've never been into space. the official narrative of space being a vacuum is already a ridiculous and impossible concept
Maybe the methods we are using are obsolete in comparison to the possibilities of Terrences discoveries.
@@Liquidcadmus No, it's not, it makes perfect sense.
@@Liquidcadmus it's ironic you say that when there's a very high chance you utilized a satellite to post that comment... a satellite you can actually go out and observe right now if you have the equipment and use a little bit of that "misguided math" that has increased your lifespan and is allowing you those first world comforts with that smartphone lol.. you people are something else. can't believe humans can be this dented.
basic entropy technology PRODUCING MORE HEAT THAN PRODUCTIVE ACTION, that's a result of Euclidean Thinking !
I just imagine that after Terry gave his treatise to Tyson, he followed Tyson into the restroom only to find his treatise floating in the toilet before proceeding to beat up Neil.
WHERE THE FUCK DID 1x1 = 2 become about the "ETHER" dawg I think he genuinly went insane
Neil said Terrence needs a prescription for lithium.
Definitely not cool. Ad hominem attacks are low class.
This is the problem with Neil, he is too arrogant, he could have talked to Terrence and spent time with someone who had a genuine interest and actually educate him, instead he just wanted to say he was wrong and stupid and don't waste my time... Damn shame
@@the-matrix-ebook Just like your Mom!
@@benjimc1 It's our job to put stupid people who never actually did the work in their place. If not this country fails to dumb like so many in history have already. Do you go and see your mechanic every time you get sick too?
If you actually study mathematics you'd know Terrence likely suffers from mental illness cuz he sure aint talking any sense with 1 x 1 = 2. Even my friend with down syndrome thinks Terrence is mentally challenged. Definitely intelligent enough to regurgitate some lines, but has zero idea how insane he sounds or wtf he's talking about. Has he submitted his findings for peer-reviewed science? yes and no. 100% of them said its nonsense and gave evidence of how and why. Its available for study. He's just taking advantage of the new-age people who are staring at a glass of water thinking they can change it to wine because theyre looking at it with pure abundant belief. "What the bleep?" was like 20 years ago and still MFers trying to profit from it instead of getting a job. If Terrence just took a college Geometry I course he'd learn why those shapes and the mathematics that first defined them have existed since the Greeks. They werent trying to unlock some alchemical magic from these shapes, its the mathematic principles and equations that gave life to them. They were defined from the nature the math was made to represent. No magic necessary. He could have just read up on Pathagorys and he could have learned this himself if he had any ability to question and call out his bullshit like scientists excel at for a reason. That is why Im leaning toward mental illness because he's been coddled by Hollywood so long he can fathom that he could just be full of shit.
@@dirtabd She might make ad hominem idk I’ll have to ask her if she cussed out anyone lately. Most likely so.
At 9:16, Howard shows a page from his book. It says "Allow me to Enlighten you. If 4/2 is the inverse of 2x2=4 then it would naturally follow that 2/1 is the inverse operation of 1x1=2" Right there Howard makes a mistake. He says that 4/2 is the inverse of 2x2=4. Notice how on the left side he only shows two numbers 4 and 2, but on the right side he shows three numbers, 2, 2, and 4. To be more correct Howard should have written 4/2 = 2. Now in math the number being divided is called the dividend, so 4 is he dividend. The number we are dividing by is called the divisor, so 2 is the divisor. The number that is the results or answer is called the quotient, so in this case the quotient is 2. So we have dividend 4/divisor 2 equal quotient 2. The inverse of this operation is the divisor x quotient = dividend, so we have 2 x 2 =4. Now we apply this to Howard's "2/1 is the inverse of 1 x 1 =2." First we add what Howard left out, namely 2/1 = 2. Now we can say that the inverse of 2/1 = 2 is 1x2=2. That is the divisor 1 times the quotient 2 is equal to the dividend 2. You see Howard start his elementary error by saying that 2/1 is 1, when correctly 2/1 is 2. From that point on he continues his parade of simple and suspicious math errors.
Howard continues to hide certain things conveniently. Notice on that same page he has headings for Division, Addition, Subtraction, and Multiplication. Notice how Division is the only one that does not use number equations. He does not want to write out 2/1 = 2 because that would contradict his 1x1=2, so instead he says "The number two is divided by one, twice. Then on the next page Howard says that "2/1 is inconsistent with 1x1=1," again conveniently leaving out that 2/1 =2 for the third time. Makes Howard's whole reasoning suspicious.
00:35 His grammar is a generated construct. Linked in incomplete sentences. Caught in the tragedy of the American education system.
true datt
You can't blame any education system for this level of drug induced mental illness fueled by utter stupidity. This is mental masturbation fueld by cocaine, adderol and an internet connection.
and the chasm created between that and superstardom.
Okay scholar 😂
Terrence pointed out that the definition of the word "multiplication" is wrong because there's the exception with the number 1, in which the number isn't being added to itself. Instead of just pointing this out he based his entire life thinking that the rest of the world was wrong instead of this 1 word definition being incorrectly worded.
this video is so well put, thank you so much for your hard work !
I think he's on to something they want regular people to know
I have the same feeling. He has either discovered something that they dont want us to know or he is almost there
Terrence Howard is more attracted to the conspiracy theory than the physics itself
Some of you are way overcomplicating this and I lost all respect for Terrence watching just 5 minutes of this. The "x" multiplier is NOT an additive function! That is what "+" is for!!!
Think of it this way: 1 apple x 1 apple eaten= 1 apple eaten.
If I eat 1 the apple (the first 1 in the equation) ONE time (the second one in the equation), how many apples have I eaten an APPLE? By his logic I would have eaten the one apple twice. IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
Dude got fired from ironman for trying to get paid twice.
How can 1 multiplied by 2 be 2, and 1 multiplied 1 also be 2???
That’s what I say but hey I’m nobody 😂’
the atom is 1.618 not 1. now go do 1.618 in a calculator. you're welcome - jinnha
He said that 1x2 equals 3, and 1x3 equals 4 etc.
He seems to think that saying "times" means something other than "how many times" lol He's got a good memory, but he's not very bright.
@@MarcGyverIt 1.618.
Click bait, the title is misleading, nothing was explained.
LOL he did explain it.
1x1= 1 fails to multiply. And personally i think he's right. To multiply is to make more.. 1x fails to do that.
@@MlNOOOOR Therein lies the error, it is 1, 1 time. Not multiple times, just once.
You don’t get it then
@@MlNOOOOR Regardless, he used this concept to get you to respond. Perhaps he has a point, perhaps he hasn't even understood his own point. But here we are. Trying to figure out if 1x1=2. Dude's smart.
@@charleshorseman55 Well, this 1 times 1 is making us all mis the point. Dont you guys understand he's trying to say, that there are ways in this universum where u can create generators with free energy etc.
If this man is right, there wont be Laws of thermodynamic and alot of other laws...
This is excellent video editing!
It all depends on how big the first 1 is as compared to the second 1. Assume the "ones" we are talking about are logs. If the first log was 10 times bigger than the second log then the natural log rhythms would be in a completely different key and you would have no way to get a new key made at Home Depot. Nobody even mentions this.
I’m following you his perspective isn’t as far out as some are making I’m just not in that field to know if that math can even be questioned but it’s not far fetched when you can think outside the box a little bit
The comment section is always the best, never fails to disappoint 😂 I love how everyone suddenly is a mathematician, scientist or physicist…
If you're wondering where straight lines hide in nature- it's in Crystals.
His point of there being "no straight lines" is stupid, he added "in nature" to make it sound more complex, even though it means nothing.
😢😢
So under a microscope the crystal would form straight lines?
It means everything. That's why there is two different numbers for pi , Einsteins with the curve of the glass and DaVinci's pi before they made America. If you learned facts of history in America, you should stop arguing all the time and unite. Seriously come TO,GET,HER or learn to swim. The country is drowning in debt...
Where ? Because Raw Crystal's Are Curved
if I have 3 5 dollar bills I have 15=,3*5... if I give u 1, you have 5 dollars 1*5 =5.. not even up for debate I have 1 dollar bill I have 1 dollar 1*1=1
Typing this after I just said the same.thing to play devil's advocate. Why would you say you are multiplying 1 and not getting more of it?
Yes that’s an axiom to work from. Another is 1x1=2.
Your logic is flawed. If you gave me 1 5 dollar bill, I got 5 dollar. There’s therefore no need to introduce 1 in the sequence anymore. That’s the whole point of the debate. If 1x1=1, why have it in the table since the table is all about multiplication? If I also got $1 & multiply it by 0, I still got my $1, since 0 ain’t providing any multiplication. This goes beyond science, it requires human intelligence & balance of objectivity.
He mentioned that listen to him.
where in nature is it just 1. Tell me the equation to the atom, its surely not just "1" or is it a different number? notice how you used a currency explanation. You're so brainwashed by materialism 😈
If you think this guys bad, Radiohead can’t even count to 5, they believe that 2+2=5 get a load of that math.
If any of you Terrence followers can answer this numerically, I will be amazed. If the square root of 2 is 1, what is the square root of 1?
Vertices, times, multipy
@@NickCharming that’s just a bunch of math vocabulary, not an answer
Its an abstraction not empirical reality, your point is beyond moot
every comment is something like: if you have a dog, and you multiply with your mom
Obviously it's 42.
The presentation of this video is awesome
We're all wrong.
The real answer
Terrance Howard not knowing how a decimal works makes me a genius
Its been awhile now since this Terrance situation happened. I'm not sure what to think but what really confuses me is the lack of physicists and scientists saying that he is wrong.
That's the same question I have, if he's wrong there will be someone to prove him wrong.
Until now, no one came with sound justifications besides resistance to change
@@victorsengo5089 The very opening of his book comes from misunderstanding multiplication. I have read into the first handful of pages and am lacking finding anything of substance. It is hard to continue reading when the opening argument is incorrect.
Because renowned scientists usually don't comment on the ramblings of drunk from the corner store. Just like Al Pacino wouldn't comment on me calling his movies shit on RUclips.
@@ljunderground you have to read it through, you cannot understand where he's going without reading the whole book.
You might disagree but it doesn't mean it's wrong, the old church burnt people because they came with new ideas. Don't be like the old church
he isn't their peer, and his claims are well known nonsense. it's hard for the average person to realize this, but to people even slightly above average IQ, it's clear as day that his math and science is just misguided and has no actual data. it's like a con man putting on a show. this is not how you do science. THERE'S NO DATA. just ramblings. he needs to show some results. some experiments. some data. not just talk about it like it's a philosophy class...
Look, I’m no scholar, I’m not very well educated nor do I have a solid grasp on mathematics. I say that to say this. This sounds very compelling, and it has piqued my curiosity, one thing I think Terrance has misunderstood is 1x1, it can’t equal 2 because it’s just another way of saying “ 1 one time” 5x1 is 5 one time….everything else he is saying sounds interesting nevertheless. I hope the academic community at large soak it up, pull it apart, confirm or deny what works and what doesn’t, use what does, toss what doesn’t. But I don’t think he should be written off without throughly examining every aspect til exhaustion.
you and everyone that says this, say it because indeed you are not educated. anyone educated realizes how silly it is. he's not even presenting any facts or data or findings of experiments.. nothing. it's philosophy. this is not science.
Professor Dave has already dismantled him and Oxford laughed at him, for good reason. The guy is a nutcase as many actors are.
He’s demonstrating the disconnect between the word picture and the math tables.
Math is an expression of a philosophical concept. If you change your verbiage to his model suddenly more concepts are easier to digest.
In finance we do math the way he does.
If I took money and returned the same amount and told ppl I multiplied it once they’d be pissed.
Unless they see a 100% return which is now DOUBLE their return … I didn’t multiply anything.
I agree. If my teachers explained mathematics in the manner Terrence is attempting to convey, I probably would have turned out better😂
Why should the scientific community examine his ramblings, because he's crazy or because he's famous?
I loved "DeGrassy Tyson" the moment I heard it and I'm never refering to him in any other manner.
NGT is a shill. He has not published in years. He mocks far more than he understands. He attacks what has never been or can be challenged mainly because they are theories without presenting his own. He is the mouthpiece of the demagogy of “science”…even disciplines he has zero business talking about. Let the weird theories be tested and the truth will sooner or later show itself.
😂😂
Ok then.
Essentially he’s saying why would we need to indicate 1 x 1 instead of just saying 1.
There are many instances where one might need to multiply two expressions, each of which reduces to 1. And you need to get that result correct! IT IS *NOT* "2".
Just wait until he discovers that you can multiply times *fractional* numbers and get LESS than you started with. I guess that such basic arithmetic will blow his mind. Multiplication and division are the same exact thing--one can be converted to the other. They're just different ways of expression.
By the way, having a patent doesn't mean that "it works"; it doesn't mean that it has value, and it doesn't mean that it's valid. But if you have the time, the money, and want to protect an idea nobody's interested in, you can still get a patent. Or 97 of them. It doesn't justify, validate, or vindicate your "work".
@@michaelstone3463 I get you, but to be specific. Why do we need to indicate the equation “1 x 1 = 1” any other number I’m with you. But it’s a waste of breathe to even say 1 x 1 equals 1.
I’m officially in love with Terrance Howard 🤤 no shade, but I didn’t realize he was so freaking intelligent!! 🤯
Would you spread your cheeks for him ??
He spitting bs lmao listen to an actual mathematician or scientist. This guy hasn't studied shit in math 😂
He's literally stupid. Actually stupid.
Why crazy cults exist, exhibit A
You misspelled schizophrenic.
Terrence is very correct, in quantum physics, 1x1=2, as much as it = 1, it's called quantum entanglement.
And I fought my teacher early 90’s that 1x1=2 because I’ve learned in my dreams that it was but I couldn’t explain exactly how and why, she then said that I could learn in advanced math that it was a possibility but for 2nd grade purposes I needed to engrave in my mind that 1x1=1 as an absolute truth to pass on my tests lol
@@albaus western education is mandatory indoctrination
@@albaus take into account that 1 is not just +1 but -1, on the number line from zero left and right. So 1×1 is not just +1 but is also -1, which makes 2 from 0, but also makes 0. 1=2 =0, which satisfies quantum mathematics, a wave is a particle, and nothing is something. Self identification is to exist independently, all senses lead into one identity, you. Every object is a separation of one original object. Mathematics is the study of 1 or one line as everything, a particle, center of gravity of oxygen, a black hole.
@@chadbreton4951 whenever you see comments like yours, it's always an uneducated European. Ok, smart boy, prove where I'm wrong, we'll wait and see.
@@chadbreton4951 see, just like I thought, white man with no answer, just hates that others know what he doesn't know. Welcome to reality where the white man doesn't know everything.
He ended up back-pedaling and said that 1x1=2 is a "metaphor."
Reality hit him like a truck in the latest podcast episode. The Dunning Kruger effect is so fascinating.
I knew my LSD trip had some truth😂
The idea that we know everything there is to know is just limiting. To advance as a species, we must continue to seek and question the status quo.
Right…. I don’t agree with flat earthers but I respect their questioning as we all should for ourselves
which is what we've been doing for a millennia or do you not realize that with that smartphone in your hand and electric vehicles driving by.. ffs... idk what low IQ people's fascination is with the world being in same state of stagnation or something.. it's so weird.
@@user-jp2ss4ws5n There is nothing wrong with questioning. There is something wrong with dismissing correct things and believing things that are blatantly wrong.
Science is pretty straight up about us not knowing everything. Nobody in the science community is saying that everything to know already known. On the contrary: the more we know, the more we become aware of the massive amounts of knowledge we don't yet have. There's nothing wrong with questioning. However, you also can't treat the question as if it's proof that the status quo is wrong. Because then anybody can just question anything, which effectively puts the onus on everybody else to do the work for the person asking the question to either prove it right or wrong. TH has not attempted, in good faith, to prove anything he says using any math or science that has been peer reviewed and proven time and again for centuries by billions of people. He didn't like the feedback he got, so he simply made up his own world, stringing together lots of things that either don't relate or are entirely misinterpreted to either support or refute whatever he wants to say. It's like trying to have a conversation with someone who is speaking a language that they themselves made up that has no basis on any language that has ever existed in the history of humanity, and whatever words they do know of the language you speak, they perpetually and confidently keep misusing them. It's... crazy.
People are hung up on the 1x1 thing, but the rest of what he’s saying regarding geometry and it’s ability to harness energy is spot on. In 500 years we will look back on todays math/physics and laugh at how wrong we were. There is much beyond our senses, harnessing the metaphysical is the real next break through. Funny how everyone attacks these ideas now, but no one pauses to think about how Galileo, though correct, was sentenced to death because people simply couldn’t see beyond the current paradigm. History repeats itself.
The improvements in the world of Science you see are done by the people who have balls of steel to test their theory and make numerous attempts to disprove it before saying "I have done it". Einstein who accidentally predicted Dark matter before it was discovered, named it as a blunder.. and here you see a guy who is conveniently making blunders and seeking shelter under the names of great people of Science. This is arrogance and irresponsibility.. this is not how Science progresses.
That may be true, but in 500 years 1×1 will still equal 1.
1 * 1 = 1 if you move the * 1 to the other side of the equation you get:
1 = 1/1 this is basically 1 is equal to the amount of 1s that fit into the number 1
1 = 1 the answer is 1=1 so 1*1 = 1
It's like Jazz Music... They took it and created sheet music out of Jazz music... when in fact true Jazz Music is played in the Gaps.
All on a backdrop - or Space of silence - which precedes and 'ends' the music and weaves throughout.
Fare thee well - in life's journey.
You can transcribe Jazz. Individual performances vary based on style of improvisation based on the chord movements and the players involved. Any individual performance can be transcribed. It's still time, chords, notes, key signatures, modes, and scales. it's not mysterious. Also, what's true Jazz? Wes Montgomery? Miles Davis? Allan Holdsworth? Jon Benjamin? Me playing the theremin with my dick?
More like scat
@@richspillman4191 Ooh - it is a valid art form (jazz) - it could be considered noise - by others.
I do not know - what Mr Howard thinks and so, we are left - to our own perspectives - as always.
Very clever - comment - actually.
Tra la la ... Fare thee well - in life's journey.
@@user-hy9nh4yk3p We try to make it interesting.
Once once, is one. 1 x 1 = 1