why 1×1=2 makes sense to Terrence Howard
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 авг 2024
- the "proof" in his own words:
te...
update: AlgebraVictory is currently on hold as of Spring 2023 when we were threatened by fascist agents of the state acting above the law (which we have followed meticulously); they refuse to give any meaningful explanation or to address a single sentence of our comprehensive rebuttal.
some brief comments on last week's JRE interview, which has totally blown up this video: I've only seen a few clips from it, but a lot of what Terrance presents are legitimate concepts from smart people whom Terrance has studied. he sprinkles in a bit of whackadoodle from his own thoughts, probably because it attracts attention, even if it's mostly people calling him a dumbass.
I agree with you
You've only seen a few clips? Hmm... Seems prejudicial to not do accurate research yet demonize this man. Maybe stop being so racially biased and racist. Are you Jewish?
💯
He is a dumbass. A serious one. A heavily narcissistic and delusional one, likely going through some form of a drug induced psychosis coupled with a burgeoning messiah complex. That, or he's only spent time around conspiracy theorists and yes men who enable hogwash and don't understand or appreciate science or scientific rigour.
Can you explain the fibonacci sequence, especially how the first couple of sequences started?
When I was a kid I thought I was smarter than everyone because I could see air. Turned out everything was just fuzzy because I needed glasses.
😂😂😂😂😂😂 dude, this is actually such a stunning metaphor for how Terrence thinks.
I dunno if you meant it to be as poignant as it is, but it's literally perfection.
this
I thought I had x ray vision because when holding my hand in front of one eye I could see through it.
🔥🔥😂
Technically you can see air. Light interacts with the electromagnetically aspect of atoms in our atmosphere and via such changes speed and thereby wave patter, usually in this context creating the color blue.
It's true that there is no territory in math, but there is a terrytory.
I'll see myself out.
😂😂😂
This is the joke that made Hydra put Captain America in a sleeper hold😂😂😂
Terryoligist here and I approve of that pun
Hahah
LOL
Terrence Howard’s idea is more like a thought problem than a math problem. Kinda Like a semantics problem. His problem distorts the “language” of math into a physical application. If you physically “multiply” something you end up with more of it. So his question asks “how could you have multiplied something and still only have one?” Definitely a weird hill to die on but that’s what I gather from his explanation.
I see it similarly. Semantics is what I hear him caught up on and yes. It is certainly a weird hill to die on. I feel embarrassed listening to it.
The underlying problem is that Terrence Howard doesn't understand multiplication - he doesn't realize it's mathematical purpose is to count by grouping.
Terrence thinks multiplication is to increase the number of things.
He thinks there is a problem, because he doesnt understand how it works.
1 x 1 means 1 group of 1 thing...
To Terrence though, it means 1 thing being added by one thing. He's ignorant... But he's also narcissistic. He doesn't care about actually learning science or math. He just wants to sound smart while throwing interesting scientific words.
It's not a thought problem, it's a misunderstanding problem. Or, if you want, a wrong thought problem. In one clip he claims that 1x1 cannot be 1 because multiplication means making a number bigger. But that's not what multiplication means. So he just doesn't understand very, very basic math. And, what is worse, he is willing to assume that every mathematician ever was wrong before questioning his own understanding of the issue.
Yeah but he doesn't ask the same question about 2x1 or 3x1. He makes only 1 special when multiplied by 1.
@smeeself Ok my bad. I only ever saw clips of him talking about it.
1x1 =1
(1 counted 1 time = 1)
1x0 = 0
(1 counted zero times = 0)
1x2 = 2
1 counted twice =2
Pretty simple
Elegant way to display this truth. Don't read my response above... it was exactly 2000 words longer. LoL
Very interesting and Elegant. How is "counted" a word to tell the reader that they should multiply? I asks this because I was never taught when you see "Counted" then you should use multiplication. Much like, 5 less than 10 is equal too? "Less than" would indicate a subtraction operation. In 1 counted zero times, what happens to the original 1 after you counted "zero" times? Because you started counting with 1 and decided to not count it and now you have Zero?
@@danzoe25 You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of multiplication in mathematics. Multiplication is a way to describe repeated addition or to represent a hypothetical scenario. Let me clarify with some examples.
Imagine you have 2 boxes, each containing 5 objects. To find the total number of objects, you count the 5 objects in each box twice: 2 \times 5 = 10. This is straightforward.
Now, consider the reverse. If you rearrange the same 10 objects into 5 boxes with 2 objects each, you count the 2 objects in each box five times: 5 \times 2 = 10. It’s similar to scanning items at a store where you scan one item and multiply by the number of items to save time.
Addressing your specific example of multiplying by zero:
1. Hypothetical Example: If you have 1 object and you multiply by 0, it means you have zero groups of that object, resulting in zero total objects. Mathematically, 1 \times 0 = 0.
2. Real-World Scenario: Suppose you decide to buy 10 bottles of water. If you change your mind and return all 10 bottles, you no longer have any bottles. This can be represented as 10 \times 0 = 0. Similarly, if you had 1 bottle and returned it, you have 1 \times 0 = 0 bottles left.
Multiplication by zero indicates the absence of the groups or objects you started with. It’s a mathematical way to describe that you have nothing left in reality. It’s not a way to manipulate and change reality. If you have 1 bottle, then multiply it by 0, nothing happens unless you are describing an event that actually occurred.
Does this make sense?
This.
Use the word time. Aa in 1 occurs 1 time that's 1
Man , this is de decadence of the world, a sign of the education level of US schools, the power of social media spreading falsehood and idiocy.
pretty much
Yep! Interesting way to put it.
what is the sign? this video?
You guys like to live in fear
Yeah it's insane how effing stupid most people, especially Americans, are.
A mistake in Mathematical concept:
Imagine you have a penny, which is just a single coin. If someone asks you how much one penny times another penny is, it might sound a bit strange because we usually don't multiply money this way. But let's explore this idea together!
Multiplication: The Grouping Concept
Multiplication is like making groups of things. For example, if you have 1 box and put 1 penny in it, you still have just 1 penny. It doesn't magically double! So, if you multiply 1 by 1 penny, you're not really making more pennies. You still have just that 1 penny, not 2. Note: we said 1 x 1 penny AND NOT 1 penny x 1 penny
Understanding Units
When we talk about multiplying things, we also have to think about what they are (their units). For example, if you multiply 1 inch by 1 inch, you get 1 square inch, which is a measure of area. This makes sense because inches measure length, and when you multiply them, you're finding out how much space something covers.
But what about our pennies? Pennies are money, not lengths or areas. So, if you try to multiply a penny by a penny, you end up with something called "penny squared," which doesn't make sense in real life. There's no such thing as a "penny squared" in your piggy bank or wallet.
Adding vs. Multiplying
When you have two pennies, you simply add them together to know you have 2 pennies in total. This is adding, not multiplying. Adding is when you put things together to see how much you have in total.
Bringing It All Together
So, when we talk about 1 penny multiplied by 1 penny, it's likely a mistake to think about it in this way. When you're saying 1 penny x 1 penny, what you're talking about is having 1 group of 1 penny. It's important to remember that this still equals just 1 penny. It doesn't magically turn into 2 pennies just because we used multiplication. Multiplication helps us understand how many things we have in groups, but it doesn't change the amount when we're talking about... 1 group of 1.
To clarify, the correct way to think about and write the concept of 1 penny x 1 penny is to see it as 1 group times 1 penny, or simply 1 x 1 penny. The real question multiplication helps answer is: How many groups of pennies do you have? This is what multiplication is truly about.
Understanding multiplication in this way helps us see that it's a method for organizing and counting things in groups, rather than changing the nature or amount of what we have. This distinction is crucial in avoiding confusion and ensuring that we apply mathematical concepts correctly in real-world situations.
Remember, in mathematics, clarity and precision in how we express and interpret concepts are key. By refining our understanding of multiplication and the units involved, we can avoid misconceptions and build a more accurate picture of the math at work in our daily lives.
Money and Math
When it comes to money, like pennies, we usually talk about adding them together to find out how much we have. If we have 10 boxes and each box has 10 pennies, that's 10 times 10 pennies, which means 100 pennies in total because we have 10 groups of 10. It's the same with just 1 penny; 1 group of 1 penny is still just 1 penny.
Conclusion
So, remember, multiplication is about groups and how many things are in those groups. We can't multiply pennies and get more pennies out of nowhere. And when we're talking about units like inches or pennies, we need to think about what those units mean and how they work in real life.
I hope this helps clear things up! Multiplication and units can be tricky, but once you understand how they work, it makes a lot more sense.
How can you multiply something for nothing! It don't make sense
@@a.d2647 Yes. It shows.
You wouldn't multiply 1 penny by one penny. You would multiply 1 penny by 1. It doesn't work that way just because you word it that way. The question itself is a confusing question, perhaps a trick question
@@a.d2647 but thats a paradox,"0" is the problem here , not the multiplication, 0 is a concept, in real life you dont have 0! cause 0=not having, so trying to multiplicate nothing is the problem here, its like this guy Terrence trying to make a theory and crete a revolution but he just didnt understand maths jajajajajajaj
@@unlocopsibro, there is no paradox
you just don't multiply anything
The bigger problem is a fundamental misconception about how Math is developed. He believes that properties like 1 being a multiplicative identity is proposed as a scientific fact, which can be disputed. When, in reality it's a matter of definitions and Theorems following from certain Axioms.
Yes, people don't understand that Mathematics is entirely made up definitions and abstract concepts that all have relationships and logic which relate them together.
For instance, a number let's say 3. 3 doesn't exist physically in the world, 3 is just a definition/ concept. But it is useful to describe things in the word.
@@funstuffonthenet5573 Yes I spend 1 day trying to understand math and I figured out this, its entirely made up
exactly, he misunderstood math as it is and now he is trying to debunk this wrong concept of math
@@funstuffonthenet5573math is entirely made up and is fundamentally flawed and not a perfect descriptor. In physical reality 1 times 1 doesn't not equal 1. If I had 1 unit and multiplied it by 1. In reality your saying your placing 1 unit on the table picking it up and putting it back down on essentially have the same Physically it doesn't work. Unless you model a forth dimensional state. In 2d explanation 2 squares would exist in the same spacial dimension. I don't think there an inherently anything wrong but physically you would have to apply the same concept to all things 1 × 1 would equal -1 and 1 which is 2 as positive and negative imdicator is a change in space is a dimensional separator. 2 ×2 is +4 and -4 and is equal to 2 to the the 4th power. I don't think thinking outside the box is bad. But to bash his intelligence because he has an idea that differs from your endoctrination monkey c monkey do mentality. It's not a science question it's a philosophical question. How can we rationalize what being explained and is multiplication 1 on possible. It could be the 1 × 1 could only bein express by a multivarsal existences. Or it could be describing something esle physically but questioning and using your imagination to come up with a theory to be challenging should be disproven through science and not through chracter assignation and using arguments to suggest a person is inferior. Science proves its self right and is suppose to educate the people interested in it and battling with it beliefs. For me this video lacks that credibility and the explanation wasn't good enough to out right discredit everything he says.
Axioms which must be assumed because they cannot be prove by math itself.
One person saying something like this is understandable. But the fact that there are tons of people thinking he is smart is just crazy
He's actually a genius he created a code that made 4 trillion dollars
as a person sharing his surname I am so ashamed of his claim
@TbV-st8ef it's actually 7 trillion google it before talking trash I'm not saying I think 1×1 is 2 but the guy defiantly is still a genius even if he's wrong about that
In a linear system or 2D plane, the equation (1 \times 1 = 1) makes sense. However, Terrence's argument is that a 2D plane doesn't exist in a 3D (or higher-dimensional) universe. Therefore, in 3D, (1 \times 1 = 2) because in space, motion requires two points of reference. These two reference points must equal 2, reflecting the need to think of mathematics in terms of three-dimensional space rather than just linear planes.Terrence's perspective challenges us to think beyond traditional arithmetic and consider how mathematics can evolve to better describe and understand the complexities of the physical world. While his specific assertion that (1 \times 1 = 2) lacks support within established frameworks, the broader idea of reexamining mathematical principles in light of physical realities is a valuable and thought-provoking endeavor. The equation (1 \times 1 = 1) is an abstract concept that may not fully capture the intricacies of a three-dimensional universe.
Nice ai response
@@GibboTheAnimal I used AI to proof and edit my response because this is a difficult topic to explain without formatting, AI did not generate my concept only edited it. Here's the original ::: Can you make my RUclips comment more concise and easier to understand:His argument is that we need new math models that take into consideration other dimensions beyond the 2nd Dimension. 0 and or 1, do not exist in a 3D world. In the 3rd dimension; 0 and 1 only exist if 2 is present. 0, 1 and 2 makes 3 digits. You need 3 digits or 3 points to establish the 3rd dimension. 2D is a concept to form constructs, it's binary, it's linear, it's planar but it does not exist in our reality but only in theory. Our universe is heliocentric and built with spheres. Since everything is a sphere or 3d. 2D math can not justify or validate 3D geometry of physics. In order to understand our universe we need to account for other dimensions. Thus we need new math. It's just that simple.
You should get a whiteboard and make a video explaining it. Thanks for the comment.
@@KareemDaKingi actually like your response better than the AI edited version
@@coreylankford7297 I Agree 👍. Thank you
I had this misconception aswell when I was younger but when my math teacher told me multiplication is like sets of things I quickly understood.
Math is counting. 0, 1, 2, 3...
Addition
0+1=1 apple
1+2=3 apples
And so on.
Subtraction is reverse.
3-2=1 apple
1-1=0 apples
And so on.
Multiplication is counting in sets.
1 set of 1 apple = 1 apple
1 set of 2 apples = 2 apples
1 set of 3 apples = 3 apples
2 sets of 1 apple = 2 apples
2 sets of 2 apples = 4 apples
2 sets of 3 apples = 6 apples
Division is reverse.
6 apples divided into 2 sets is 3 apples per set. And so on.
Like the word multiplication in math the atom is named incorrect also. The word atom is derived from the ancient Greek adjective atomos, meaning "uncuttable" or "indivisible". We have divided it into over 200 of the subatomic particle zoo with the accelerator/colliders.
Accounting money is strictly addition and subtraction. No where in accounting is money being multiplied.
What kind of stupidity do you think Terrence Howard is making in his "loops" math?
@@369spartanhand me your set of one apple and I'll multiply it with my set of one apple. Then you'll have zero apples and I'll have one apple 😁 hustle and flow
Stupidity of grandeur
So then if it’s like sets of things how do you multiply particles and atoms, or things on a quantum level and understand it we are using our 2 DIMENSIONAL thinking our dumb ass human logic to understand the universe Terrance’s logic is 3 dimensional which aligns with the natural world we cannot advance further as humanity into space or Astro/quantum physics with our straight line thinking, we made up the straight line it doesn’t exist where in nature have you ever once seen a straight line please tell me, it seems the kid you was smarter.
@@369spartan I don't know why its still called atom . It was a Greek word called "atomos" but at the time they thought that atoms were indivisible and could be broken down . They should name it "toms" because I think the word "a" means cut so "toms" would be divisible .
You can tell he's never studied true advanced math because numbers start to get replaced with letters and symbols and he's still stuck on learning what 1*1 is.
haahaha. Nope. but you are even less intelligent than you think he is if you believe that he honestly thinks one times one = 1. It's called abstract. one of the concepts proven in math by Irrational numbers. But lets get this straight - You honestly believe that this man thinks that one times one = 2 and that is his depth of understanding?
You are making this way too hard. 2 X 3 = 2 + 2 + 2 = 6. You are taking the number 2 and adding said number 3 times, thus "X 3". Same with 1 x 1. We are taking the number one and adding it to itself 1 time. 1x1 = 1 = 1. Terrence Howard suffers from Post Traumatic Math Class Syndrome.
You said your taking the number one and adding it to itself one time which would make the number two.
Yeah, I get what you're trying to say, but I think it's better explained by thinking in sets. If you have 4 sticks of butter, and have 5 packs (or sets of butter), you'd have 20 total sticks of butter. So if you have say 1 can of root beer, that could also be considered 1 "set" of root beer, you would have 1 set of 1 can, which would equal 1 root beer. If you say 1 root beer and I have 10 sets of that, I would have a total of 10 root beers. I'm not a mathematician by any means but it's always helped me thinking about it that way
@@koreyevans7221That’s addition. 1X1 means you have one unit of 1. 2X2 means you have 2 units of 2, right?
Terrence is wrong but he's also right.
1 x 1 = 1^2, not solely '1', but also not 2.
@@kuqicouture4803exactly it’s 1 squared
That’s why I like physics more than math…calculations are more applicable to the everyday world
weirdly, a lot of pure maths has found it's uses in many areas, from quantum physics to other areas, that's what's gotten me interested in pure mathematics because I'd like to appreciate the equations explaining our universe' phenomenon. Terrance on Joe Rogan mentioned something about octaves and the table of elements, I plan on making a video on how he confused the analogy for literal. What intervals are to octaves, are what quantized energy states are to electron orbitals. Chat GPT helped me understand that's what he was trying to say, at least on that topic, I had no idea he said even crazier stuff, to be honest, I was surprised when I asked if there was any relationship between octaves and the table of elements, and it listed off a bunch of applicable analogies and a fascinating pattern in nature. He seems genuine, and I've dealt with psychosis myself, thankfully it was drug-induced so I came out of it when I stopped fucking with substances. I feel for the guy, psychosis is convincing as hell and I'd say he's an intelligent person just not of souund mind. I don't know why Joe didn't challenge his beliefs a bit, I get that it'd fall apart if you dissected too much but some push back and call for explanation would've been nice,
Terrence Howard also doesn't believe in gravity so I don't think physics would be helpful 😂
@@barahng he said he believes that gravity is a product of electricity
@@barahng The funniest thing about Terrance Howard are all the people who want to believe he's actually as stupid as they are. he's not kiddo. truth hurt? is that why you need to twist peoples words and falsely reduce them to fools and to scapegoats for your little little mind?
Is your monitor behind a fence that you have to peer over?
This made me laugh so hard that my belly hurts. 😂😂😂😂😭😭😭😭
Terrence Howard is a clown 🤡
Very interesting, but too long to say that Terrence doesn't understand how maths work and what logic is
A common mistake elementary teachers make when teaching multiplication is usage of units, e.g., 1 dollar x 1 dollar = 1 dollar. However, as the video states, one of the units isn't a physical unit, it's an abstract unit. So, the correction is: 1 math unit x math unit = 1 dollar
But you can multiply units in physics and geometry (moreso difficult in physics were seemingly nonsensical units can exist that denote change and a synthesis of terms). Because I am mathematically inept, I want to know: how come? I don’t understand what multiplication entails in physics very well. It seems to denote a different relation. As in, 1in × 1in = 1 (a composite, in^2) - this is somewhat more difficult for me to wrap my head around linguistically, and I'd like a logical exposition, because units ARE being multiplied.
@@sticlavoda5632 1n = 1 is the simplified form of 1 * n dollars = 1 dollars
1 dollar * 1 dollar = 1dollar^2
@shrekeyes2410 again.. another simplification... you have to move the unit to the righthand side.
(1)^2 = 1 dollar
(1 * 1) = 1 dollar
What is the sum of 2 x 2 or 6 x 7 in Moronology?
This actually made me laugh 😂
You sound like you're just reading from text monotonously, which makes this hard to watch.
Let’s consider multiplication as repeated addition. If we have “one set” made up of “one unit”, we have one unit:
1 = 1
[Another way to understand this is: if I have "One Set" that is made up of "an individual unit," then I have "one unit," (1)(1) = 1 unit.]
If we have “three sets” and each set is made up of “one unit”, we have three units:
1 + 1 + 1 = 3
This is equivalent to the multiplication operation (3)(1) = 3.
If we have “five sets” and each set is made up of “six units”, we have thirty units:
6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 = 30
This is equivalent to the multiplication operation (5)(6) = 30.
Multiplication is just a concept of “grouping of things”
Terrence Howard and the people who believe him are a great example of just how bad math education is in the states.
The real problem is people like you who don’t question the reality they live inns just take things like monkey see monkey do. “Hey I just spawned in this reality and this people seem to tell me what to do, better just go along with it” instead of questioning everything
If i give you one beer. How many bears do you have 😂😂😂 internet is kill us all. Wait til A.I figure out we're dumb enough to coexist with them and are a threat to its survival.
But if you give me beer beers then I have beer squared which is basically 2 beers 🤣
@@jackzsonguess only one of us is drinking then by that mathematical 🍺 equation 😂
I think it's just because his vision is messed up and the x looks like a +
1 x an apple = 1 apple.
1 x 10 apples = 10 apples.
Apple × Apple is two apples 😆
@@LordDirus007clearly its Apple squared!
That’s what we’re taught yes
@@friezasoicy8406thats whats correct, yes, thats why we've been taught it
@@lonesome3958 you’ve been taught that it’s correct yes, you don’t ever question anything and that’s okay
Multiplication is simply a number x that many times. 1 once is 1, 2 twice is 4, etc. it’s really sad that the poor guy can’t seem to comprehend those logistics.
Therefore by that logic 1 and 0 don’t exist in multiplication because they don’t multiply, it’s only in the beginning of 2 and above where “TRUE MULTIPLICATION” happens.
1 and 0 should not be considered in multiplication because they don’t multiply, they should be given a different term.
but how could you ever do something twice (2×) if you can't do it once (1×)
@@infinitelywizardly1776 it represents how much of a number is in a given number. 3x1 is 3 but only one time so it’s 3, 3x2 is 3 twice in itself so the answer is 6. It’s not directly calling for addition, think of it like a number occurring x (this) many times in itself.
@@calmbroly5575 Understanding multiplication involves recognizing it as a method for combining multiple groups of the same size. The concepts of 1 and 0 play essential roles in this process, each serving a unique purpose that is integral to mathematical operations at all levels.
The Role of 1 in Multiplication
The number 1 is the identity element for multiplication. This means that when you multiply any number by 1, the result is the number itself. This property doesn't diminish the value of 1 in multiplication; instead, it provides a fundamental basis that ensures consistency across mathematical operations. When you multiply a number by 1, you're essentially saying you have one group of that number. Far from being irrelevant, this operation is crucial for maintaining the integrity of mathematical principles.
The Role of 0 in Multiplication
Similarly, 0 plays a critical role in multiplication. Multiplying any number by 0 gives a result of 0. This reflects the concept that if you have zero groups of something, you end up with nothing. This isn't a sign that 0 'doesn’t multiply' but rather that it applies the rule of having nothing in a consistent and predictable way across all numbers. The existence of this rule makes mathematical operations reliable and understandable, enabling us to build more complex equations and solve more intricate problems.
Why "True Multiplication" Includes 1 and 0
The idea of "true multiplication" only starting at 2 disregards the foundational roles that 1 and 0 play in the broader framework of mathematics. Every number, including 1 and 0, has a place in multiplication because they help us understand and organize the world in a consistent manner. To exclude 1 and 0 from multiplication or to give their interactions with other numbers different terms would not only complicate mathematical education but also undermine the coherence and simplicity of mathematics itself.
Conclusion
In mathematics, clarity, consistency, and universality are key. The rules for 1 and 0 in multiplication provide us with a stable foundation from which we can explore and understand more complex concepts. These numbers allow us to express and solve problems accurately, whether we're dealing with the theoretical underpinnings of mathematics or applying math to real-world situations. Therefore, rather than being excluded or renamed, the roles of 1 and 0 should be embraced for the critical functions they serve within the realm of multiplication.
@@calmbroly5575your logic is wrong. no axiom states that multiplication does not apply to 1 or 0
Good vid. I think at his age though its no longer the responsibility of his teachers that he has no intellectual conscience.
If I had one dollar one time in my life then I only had one dollar in my life. $1 twice in my life would be $2. How is that not real life example. $1 for 1 hour of work, maybe he just thinks he deserves more than he negotiated for in the interview…
So basically this is a TH performance piece based on a co-character of his from Empire?
Okay just so i understand:
I go to a market, for example food market.
I see an apple at a stand/stall and i say to the guy behind the counter, i would like to have two of that apple. What means i asked for that kind of thing two times. So 2(apples i would like to have) x 1(the apple behind the counter that you don't own)
So the guy behind the counter gives me two apples. 2x1=2
And i pay the value he wants to have for this two apples.
Right?
not even remotely close lol jk
it'd be 1+1 = 2
@@Dabby724
It’s a word equation like in school
They’re asking for 1x1+1x1 and asking why that can’t be 1x1 instead. Well look then:
1x1+1x1 = 1x1
Look right to anyone?
Maybe this would help you all. One, one time equals one. One, two times equals?(you answer) there you go... 1x1 is not 2. It is not even something more than 1. It is 1, 1 time. The answer is 1.
Or 1 group of 1 thing. This box contains a 1x1 floor tile It's 1 floor tile ... 2 groups of 4 things. This box has 2x2 floor tiles so 4 tiles.
This example just helps people visualize the 1x1 so they won't go off the rails and start saying it's 2 when they hit the reefer.
It's 1 of something 1 time! 1 tile of a certain color 1 time is 1 tile of said color. 2 of something 2 times is 4 ... a group of 2 green tiles , and a group of 2 red tiles are 4 tiles (2x2=4) (so if the box says half red half green 50/50 and it says it's a box of 2x2 you know you have half of one color half of the other color ) (if it's a 1x1 box you can't have 2 colors because it's 1 thing)
1x1 is always going to be ONE!!! one group of something is always going to be 1 thing!!!! one group of 100 cars x 1 is not 200 cars it's a group of 100 cars 1 time !!!!! Again 1x1 means something 1 time! 100 cars 1 time is 100 cars 1 car 1 time is 1 car. So 100x1=100 the same as 1x1 =1 If 1x1 was 2 then that means 1 group of 100 cars is now magically a group of 200 cars!!!
Any number multiplied by 1 will always be the same number hence why 1 multiplied by 1 is 1. Any group of things cataloged as a x1 is the number of things in the group. A group of 67 cars x 1 is 67 cars , a group of 1 car x 1 is 1 car. 1car + 1 group = 1 group of cars that contains 1 car or 1x1=1 1car x 1 group = 1 car
Can't believe how basic people are I didn't even went to school ... and that actor gives lectures saying 1x1 =2 ... we are doomed ....
❤
That’s because he’s an atheist. Everything in an atheistic world is relative. He’s not wrong. He’s not right. Everything just “is” it’s all an illusion that he’s created in his own mind.
Whoah, don’t bring atheism into this. Had nothing to do with his lunacy. There are plenty of Christians (or people of any religion) who believe crazy things simply because they take an ancient text at face value.
The mathematic breakdown is specifically in terms of physics. To use your area example here, 1 inch x 1 inch = 1 square inch does in fact denote two specific inches. As an equation for dimensional conversion, 1 X-inch x 1 Y-inch = 2 inches measured. This is a valid statement in the description of a physical plane. This becomes even more clear with an understanding of the etymology of the word "square". As a carpenter, I cannot get "1 square" without pulling my tape measure 2 times. The root two loop is another, 3+ Dimensional mathematical expression of a rule of our corporeal universe.
It's not a question of how many times you draw your tape measure. You found the area of the square, not the amount of lines it takes to create it. By this logic you're still wrong anyway cause then we need 4 specific inches. Seriously this argument is so poor that it's hard to argue against because you're literally misanalyzing fundamentally basic logic. This argument is literally "if I have 1 apple in 1 basket how big is an apple in inches?" The conclusion you've drawn is a complete non sequitur from your initial premise.
@@zato-1766 📐
@@zato-1766 I understand you are talking perimeter, 🔲🔳 with the 4 unit square you described, that is another equation.
@@Dontrustmycamera They can't understand past basic math concepts.
@@zato-1766 how you doin'? You came on so strong, Do you understand better now?
Engineer here. God bless you for laying this out a year before people are gonna need it. You said it a lot nicer than I thought possible.
Thank you! My goal is to guide everyone to the truth and one less topic that can become politicized. It's frustrating to see people misled by foundational errors in mathematics, which should be the purest form of truth.
@@anthonyricciardo there is something missing somewhere in all of this. i dont know what it is but no matter what the truth is, someone somewhere in the chain of information is leaving something out. i know how this sounds but i have to believe you are like a good little pawn reciting the script that turns us away from whatever howard is trying to explain. there has to be some disconnect between simply grouping items and the multiplying th is explaining. i cant say hes right but i just feel there is some slippage of info during the first transfer, from howard to creepy guy here. then, since creepo knows hes read the prepared script more times than most, that most people will not realize what has been disregarded as he herds us into a holding cell of ignorance and ties us up with inexperience, mild doubt, and lack of further ambition toward truth...
@@MetaverseMike well, I’m just a simple truth seeker myself. There are facts and opinions. There is also misunderstanding and this video did a great job of confusing some really simple concepts. Try to go through my explanations and then ask me if I have attempted to lead anyone away from the truth. I think your position is really ironic, though. It just shows how misunderstanding can lead to distrust.
OK, this is getting confusing.What are you replying to that I said? I'm not Saying anything one way or the other about anything right at this moment, but what stance did I take? Why Is it ironic?
@@anthonyricciardo There is no really great way to back.Track depending on which way I access these replies and then reply to them.At least not on mobile that I can tell.
multiplication is just sets of thing
1 set of 0 is 0
1 set of 1 is 1
2 sets of 2 is 4
1(set) x 0(item) is 0
because it can't be a set if it's comprised of nothing.
However if flipped:
1(item) x 0(sets) is 1
2(items) x 0(sets) is 2
As the items can still be counted however this is no longer multiplication as it contains no sets and is in fact addition, thus is written in incorrect form.
1+0 is 1
2+0 is 2
I like this concise example.
How can a set of something be 1?
@@caponewgp1 So, the response or reason is rather trivial... you can have a numbered set. 1 set or a set of 1 object. I was going to go into detail here about set theory and and how this is related to the concept that between any two points on a line, there are infinitely many points (rooted in the density property), but someone accused me of being a word vomiting narcissist, which just tickles me silly with laughter. So, I seemingly have four choices for myself right now: 1. continue with my explanation, 2. explain and go further down a rabbit hole by detouring into other branches of math to illustrate more confusion, 3. step over this lightly and discuss how a simple misunderstanding here results in being stuck at this base level of arithmetic OR 4. Stop and continue next week. There are a thousand more layers of complexity that would completely leave most of us baffled and speechless. So, I think I am just going to settle for enough of my word vomit for now and stop. I have exceeded my weekly allotment of RUclips comments for the week.
Or, its simplified form of addition, 2*2 means to add 2, 2 times. This is how it's implemented in programming and hardware.
@@talesbyAlgorithm that’s how you account for the numerical side of the calculation. How do you handle the units?
I finally understood it.
He thinks if you've got 1 thing multiplied by one thing the youve got two things, you have to have two things to start with, otherwise what happened to the other thing.
However, its not like that. Youve got one thing, only one time, so youve got one thing. You don't have one thing and another thing.
If i take one apple once, ive got one apple, its not addition where if I have one apple and add one. The "x 1" part is not a "thing" at any point, its an operation.
What's interesting is maybe Terrence doesn't have all the answers. But I do give him credit for asking the right questions. It is becoming more and more apparent that what is taught in "public schools" and textbooks used are not education and knowledge. But simple memorization around a narrative that supports the "corporate entities" of the world, and the businesses they happen to compete in.
Starting from 0. How many times a number is added to get to the next number. 1x1=1 Because starting a 0. Adding 1 one time.
You get 1.
2x3
Starting from 0 adding 2 three times
0+2 =2 2+2=4 4+2=6
2 added three times =6
2 times 3 =6
You have done a very good job of explaining it better than the video
Why would you start from zero?
2 x 3 is just 3 added to 3 two times.
2x3 = 3+3 = 6
The first number is the multiplier the second number is the multiplicand. The first number tells you how many times to add the second number to itself.
The problem is the misunderstanding of what "times" means. It simply means that there is 1 instance of the value of one. And then 1 instance of the number value of 2...etc. Moving up to the 2 times table means that there are now 2 instances of the value of of 2 which are then added together to equal 4. Beyond the 1 times table, which only states the existence of a value represented by a bumber symbol, multiplcation is just shorthand represenation for addition.
The 1 times table really isnt saying much beyond "This is a value....one time.*
This isn't even the dumbest thing i heard all day.
1x1=1
I’ve only just heard about it. You’ve had the shortest video.
I understood you explanation and appreciated it.
His explanation is stupid.
Mental conception...he says.
Give me a break
Math needs to prove math...
Not his brain
Who the hell are u looking at.
Not my eyes
@@richhava
The actor guy who thinks he had some great mathematical discovery is clearly an idiot.
However, this video explains the actor guy’s idea succinctly.
@@richhava How do you prove math with math if you need math to prove math ? this is why we have axioms
@@vincentlemoine3830
Vincent, sometimes people like you are too damn smart...science and math equations feed that drive to excel..
But, if parts of system is bullshit......a lie supported by lies over time
And you end up with the most ridiculous "we have all been had"
Spinning globe and gravity and infinite space make me puke pure tripe......
10 years and over 6000 hours of research if digging and digging and I'm still digging. I was a paid professional researcher for the Detroit Free Press, for a decade so I think I know what I'm doing.
The two biggest deceptions that I am embarrassed to ever believe in is the globe and eternal hell.
Once you get out for a few years, you realize just how stupid they are
Before you think about laughing, ridiculing or name calling, you need to check yourself.....
How much time have you spent challenging the globe....
If none, then please refrain from dumb comments.
If you cannot debate both sides of an issue, then your words are brass......it means I would beat you in a college debate easily.
Don't mean to be an ass, but nothing worse than an ignorant whack
Running their mouth when they don't know shit
Terence's problem isn't lack of education or bad teachers. He's legitimately mentally ill-- Narcissitic Personality Disrorder. Plenty of teachers have explained to him why he's wrong. But his unwell psyche requires him to believe he's tapped into some special knowledge and was sent by the universe to reveal his insights and genius to humanity
If you live in America, it's 1x1=2
whats next? "2+2=5" going 1984
I see everyone explaining simple multiplication and I don't think anyone actually looked into the context in which he meant it. Everyone knows that when multiplying a number by an instance of 1 in standard multiplication when using it as a measurement scale is in fact the number multiplied by that instance.
Yeah, they don't get it, it's cognitive dissonance. like the flat earthers Or the sun revolves around us crowd.
@@KareemDaKing I am not saying he is correct or wrong, but I am willing to indulge Howard in the idea or perspective that he looks at the idea from. This is a long and unusual conversation to have but forget even thinking of the concept 1 x 1 equals 2, people dont even understand the disagreement that him and Mr Tyson have.
No dude... There is no context within standard mathematics or established scientific understanding where "1×1=2" is correct. He is wrong and the conversation is quick and normal.
@@justincalhoun7062 I think that is the point. It is not standard mathematics that he speaks of. Do you get the disagreement him and Niel have?
@@op3nsignal174 No, it isn't the point. 1x1=1 is a fundamental principle of arithmetic that holds true across all mathematical systems. He doesn't seem to be speaking of anything grounded in fact or logic. It is fluff and confusion.
Example...Note that: Interval = 1, interval x interval does not give 3 intervals and does not complete as 1 interval. two intervals are called out and asked to multiply. intervals sum are unable to agree so both intervals ask for other arithmetic means to settle the multiplication query. zero is not an answer as you ask for intervals to cancel out, not multiply. one is not the answer because two intervals are called upon for quantification using mathematical multiplication. if each interval truly existed as true standalone intervals then we have a funny game. however if 1 interval is a unit and the other interval is a factor then this game can be controllably conceived. Intervals are placed, multiplied and forced to agree that if the game were actually unit times unit, rather than unit interval times interval factors, perception bends so much the circle closes the loop autonomously it goes unchecked. Thus a calculator is only representing the known factors it is given and not the intervals that subjugate units from convex multiplication loops that resolve to square 90 degree human perception. The ruler has broken scale, the mind has an earthly bias and nothing will last forever. So what is the answer if the case is a bogus application? Why struggle? I will say that if two intervals met on a wave, each will pass each other, still a sum of 2 yet each interval unit factors a 1 after the moment where asked to multiply in a mathematical context and resolution. Thus, 2.
multiplication is not two intervals quantifying together to increase. Your whole argument falls apart from there
@@rusluck6620lmao cause a teacher told you that's the rule huh
@@mikepiccoli6378 nope, it's because that is the rule
multiplication is basically just adding groups, and 1*1 is literally 1 group of 1 is it that hard
Interesting... I did not really understand, though. Do you mean to say that traditional mathematical concepts and tools might not fully capture the complexity of intervals and their interactions? Intervals are a more complex topic. Intervals certainly have deeper implications/limitations and are not fully represented with arithmetic. There are other frameworks for this.
Technically, 1 isn't multiplied by 1. it's basically saying 1 is written on the board one time. 1x1 is short for, You have 1 written one time on the board. What do you have total on the board? So Technically there should never be an expression 1x1 written, it should just be 1. Then 1x2, 1x3 and so on. Terrance is thinking about something literally multiplying one time and it becomes 2. Multiplication Technically isn't about literally multiplying anything, its about how many Multiples of any given object or number. 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3. Would be 3x7. And 7,7,7, would be 7x3. Its a way of adding Multiples of a number. I believe its the functionality of Multiplication is what needs some clarification for Terrance.
So if you have $0 in your pocket and you multiply it by $1 you will have $0 ?
I think u don't know multiplication n how it is used what in the world is happening
Yes. 0 times 1 means "nothing" times one. Which is essentially, nothing.
that's partially correct. but in reality we don't multiply a dollar value by another dollar value. I have never once encountered a square dollar (or dollar squared if you prefer).
You have 0 , $1bills
If I have a billion pockets containing $0, guess how many $$$ I got, genius?
So some people believe that 1 * 1 = 3
What next? Women can become men?
That was first😂
get ready for transgender
Love your video man. You explained this better than anyone I’ve seen. And I agree. I don’t think Terrence deserves hate, he isn’t a grifter like Jesse. I just think he’s overconfident and delusional.
It's kind of like how some people think a Quarter After the Hour means 25 because they are thinking of Currency and not Divisions of a whole.
I think Terrence sees x2 1's and thinks = 1...
So I think the most interesting thing you said is that it's not 1....
Leaving some room for discussion.
I am completely outside of this but it almost feels like he is talking about something different than multiplication the way I know it.
And maybe he is onto something.
He's definitely smart.
I would love to see him sit down and talk with Eric Weinstein.
I believe Mr. Howard is thinking of it as taking 1 and adding it to itself 1 time as being 1+1 ∴ 1x1 = 1+1=2
It seems he was tripped up at the very beginning of the multiplication table. He is looking at it from a different perspective but not what the math operation actually is meant to mean.
Multiplication is successive addition. 3×2 (2+2+2) = 6 therefore 1×1 (1+1) =2
Also: Numbers should represent a physical objects, so in the case of multiplication with zero, the zero should always be the first number in the equation. 3 beans × 0 beans = 3 beans
This is wrong. By your definition, 3x2=9 (3+3+3) and 3x1 = 6 (3+3)
Terrance Howard reminds me of a child using big words in order to “sound smart”.
It’s not fooling too many people.
He said the math must support physics. He is doing this because he has Einstein's birthday, and is thinking this is no coincidence, he must be the same person his mind is telling him he is like Einstein.
Why not?
Einstein wasn't even a genius lol (Paul Gerber wrote E=mc2 17 years before Onestone)
His wife did his original Math.
Its Maric-Lorentz-Poincare-Minkowski-Onestone (Einsteins) formulization of Machian Relationalism....
This video thread is beyond a joke...
Are all of you tards who don't know basic history?????
By his logic , Einstein should be a female in rebirth .. he claims X and Y changes every birth 😅
I read through Terrance's "papers", and his entire issue is just that he misinterprets the definition of multiplication. He thinks:
a*b is 'b' added to itself 'a' many times, therefore, if you start with 1 and multiply it by 1, then you add 1 to itself 1-many times, which is "2".
I don't know where he got the "add to ITSELF x many times..." from. There is no "itself", you're just adding a, b-many times. This is probably why he doesn't believe in 0 either.
You are just repeating what you learned in school. The dictionary definition of 'multiply' is to 'increase in number or quantity'. If 1*1=1, there is no increase in value, so explain how that is multiplying.
@carlosfajardo9998 Firstly, there is no "the" dictionary. Many dictionaries will have many different phrasings of definitions. However, since you're probably just referencing the definition from Google, I have two things to say:
1) It astonishes me that you say I'm "just repeating back what I learned in school" while you repeat back to me the first google result you find.
2) You're not even repeating back the entire google definition. The definition reads:
"obtain from (a number) another that contains the first number a specified number of times."
Meaning, if you start with 1, you obtain another number from that which contains "1" a specified number of times. In our case, 1*1 would yield 1, one time.
Look braniac, he is pointing out the inconsistency of the current math system...
And he is still on the wrong side of things cause he is worried about this inconsistency causing future problems.
What he don't see is that YHWH is on control of everything......
Howard expresses that energy is forever with no ending and he might be right to a point.
YHWH is energy.....
He has always been.
If we were created at creation but lost our place and now have to.choose between good and evil (for not taking a side in the rebellion) it will be the ones that find the truth and get to be returned to Tap into His energy and not need our flesh bodies anymore and live forever.
But, if you fail here in this life, the energy giver will cut your shit off and you.are no more.
This scenario has no proof other than ancient history books but at least I can admit that....
Either way, you better figure it out while here or I guarantee you, this is all you get...
Don't trust xtianity.
Read the Bible yourself and the Truth is easy to see.
you mention "the inconsistency of the current math system". care to elaborate on that? while there are many important, thought-provoking paradoxes, they are not inconsistencies.
@infinitelywizardly1776
I am not a braniac and perhaps inconsistency was.the wrong word.
What I think he is trying to point out is that the square root of two does not follow the rest of the square root similarities, thus he believes that is a problem....
I have no clue about quantum physics or
Most of the shit he is talking about, but I get his point.
And it seems to me thst you and others dismiss it without really giving it enough thought.
I wish I had time to study quantum physics but I'm 60 years old...
I have over 5000 hours of research in the past ten years and although I cannot prove it, I know damn well that math is used to support stupidity.
For example....
I have seen pretty much from bottom to top, the skyline of Chicago at 40 miles or so on a few occasions.
According to the math equation provided by alleged scientists, the building should be swallowed up by the curve.
The Chicago weatherman attributes this to a mirage.
Are you freaking kidding me....pure horseshit.
The other reason is so frigging difficult to understand but it has to do with light refraction and such and they have an equation that proves it....
Are you kidding me.
Science is about facts not theory.
The only.possible answers are
The fucking earth is flat and the buildings are seen cause its real....
Or
The earth is much much much much bigger than we are told..
5000 hours of research and you know
That reality is whatever the fuck they want it to be.
How about 41 of 43 presidents have rh neg blood. 13% of population hsve rh neg.
That makes having 41 of 43 mathematically a Google plex.
How can you fool.7 billion people.
Pretty damn easy when you own the media, the money and working on the military.
Wise up and get your intelligence in the right place and help stop the madness.
Put your Truth and reality on the line
Science is mostly not science.
It's a theory on top of a theory.
Like a lie needing to tell more lies to cover up the initial lie.......
A spinning ball with the gravity God.
I am supposed to believe the opposite of what I see and feel....
The earth ain't moving and the sky is not rotating around the north star...
It's an allusion or the exact opposite they tell us.....
Dude, I am not that fucking stupid anymore........
It's all horse shit.....
I got more and more of their bullshit figured out.
7 billion people better come out of the brainwash.
And yes, I can tell you exactly why they are successful at brainwashing the masses if you want to know.....
But, you don't care.
You just keep on keeping on my brainiac brother.
How did jesus get more fish and bread then 😂
E=mc^2, he just used energy to transform masses of atoms to end up with the required amount of the required molecules.
No multiply means to increase to copy.
1x1 means 1 copied 1. Therefore that is 2 copies.
In real life make 1 multiple of 1 sheet. You now have 2 sheets.
Ok this is not just a play on words. Because this describes how these numbers are applied by nature. We as humans have given 1×1 an answer of 1 but nature has not done so. Therefore we have stalled in our understanding of physics and quantum physics because we are not playing by the laws of nature.
You have no idea what you talking about, don't you? It's basic of mathematics and it's terrifying that poeple need it to be explained to them, because they create their own theories in which ONE COPIED ONE so they have two copies now. I gave you an apple and I did it ONE TIME. How many apples do you have?
@k.k.8761 do you know the meaning of multiply. Just because you define 1 copy of the original as being one does not mean that other definitions are incorrect. It only means that we collectively agreed that we shall stick to this standard in order to standardize mathematics. Just take a look at bidmas, all answers correct but only 1 answer is accepted.
Therefore there are many solutions to a mathematical problem. In terms of quatum mathematics an electron does not have to comply to human standards of mathematics therefore we will never understand it's true nature until we start to accept other posdibilities. Free your mind from the shackles of standardization like einstein did and thonk differently.
PS don't put people down that is the reason we as a race do not make progress.
Now in terms of root 2 cubed and halved etc
.. this is non issue as you are dividing by the base log. So there is a loop. It works with 3 cubed divid three as well. This is not my point
@@k.k.8761i know the definition of multiplication for arithmetic
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication#Axioms
Also, bedmas/podmas is just notation
And yes, you need math for quantum physics. You need differentials and complex numbers, which is math way higher then multiplication
and Einstein definitely needed math for relativistic physics
@@ibzman1393"electrons do not behave according to mathematics"
almost anything in physics can be modeled around mathematics. An electron is no exception
@@ibzman1393also, if there are multiple definitions, the author makes it clear which one. The reason we chose 1 is because we use standard definitions, and different definitions aren't helpful
I understand some of what Terrance Howard is putting out there, about harmonic resonate frequencies being used to heal diseases, it's been done. Goggle the rife machine and what happened to Dr. Rife. I'm struggling to understand them math, because if I give you one dollar, one time. You only have one dollar, not two. And I don't get how he's multiplying currency times currency. I am open minded and struggled with math until I learned to read music and became a musician, so it may just be that I'm not grasping his concept. I know the concept of multiplication is that it is to increase a quantity, and maybe that's where the confusion comes in. With "numbers" like zero (and is that really a number") and the number one, multiplying wouldn't follow the written definition of increasing in numbers, Someone please explain this to me if he indeed has some merit. I do not think he's crazy, I think in many areas, he's spot on and I respect him for having the courage to question long held common beliefs, even if he isn't accurate. Remember, people used to believe the earth was flat and some still believe it's only 4,000 years old because of a book (collection of books) written by men. But science has proved how old the earth is, and humankind has only been here for a blip in time. So, right or wrong, give the man credit for questioning. Now, back to 1 x 1 If I found a penny one time when I was walking down the street, how could I have 2 pennies?
questioning is good. it's how we learn. the verb to multiply does mean to increase, but only in a non- mathematical context. this is because the original context of multiplication is between integers greater than 1, which will result in an increase. all other contexts, eg multiplying by 1, by 0, by a fraction, by a negative, are derived by reverse engineering the logic seeded in the original context. you can call it "scaling" to include this larger context more accurately.
the bible doesn't claim that the earth is 4000 thousand years old
it seems currency has an effect on this misinterpretation of what howard is explaining, somehow
something to the effect of, because we think of multiplication as its used with currency, the difference between it and multiplication as it refers to the replication of info as it occurs within nature is such that we have fucked a lot of shit up as a result
@@MetaverseMike no, replication is not multiplication, we dont replicate things
Basic Arithmetic: If 1 x 1 = 2, then 2 x 1 would also equal 4, and so on. Our entire system of multiplication would be thrown off, making basic arithmetic impossible to perform.
Geometry: Areas of squares, circles, and other shapes would be fundamentally altered. The very concept of area, which relies on multiplication, would be drastically different.
Physics: Many fundamental physical laws are based on mathematical principles. The laws of motion, gravity, and electromagnetism would all be thrown into disarray. The universe as we know it would cease to exist.
Even fucking AI tells me that the concept can indeed be true What the fuck man ?
Ideal vs. Real: Platonic solids are idealized concepts. They represent perfect geometric shapes with precise angles and sides. In reality, physical objects will always have slight imperfections and variations. This is why even a perfectly crafted sphere will never be truly "perfect" in a mathematical sense.
Distortion and Non-Linearity: Your point about stretched ovals and distorted circles in our hypothetical non-linear space emphasizes how real-world objects would be affected by a change in the fundamental rules of geometry. It's a reminder that our understanding of space and shape is based on mathematical models, which may not perfectly reflect reality.
The Importance of Abstraction: Mathematics allows us to work with abstract concepts like Platonic solids and perfect circles. These idealizations are incredibly useful for developing scientific theories, creating engineering designs, and understanding the world around us.
The Challenge of Bridging the Gap: The challenge lies in bridging the gap between our abstract mathematical models and the messy, imperfect world we experience. This is where the concept of "approximately" becomes important. We may not be able to find a perfect square in nature, but we can find shapes that are close enough for practical purposes.
I think he’s stumbled upon a flaw in the simplified syntax of multiplication in this case.
Because there’s no separation between the quantity or unit 1 and the multiplication value 1.
Therefore the equation: 1 x 1 is the Quantity of 1 One time.
Therefore the quantity of 1 two times is 2. And so on…
1x0=1 not 0. So something(1) times nothing(0) still should be something. Your example with the squares. One square times no square CAN NOT equal to no squares. Even if we change the question to; 0 groups of squares times 1 group of squares CAN NOT equal to 0/no squares.
So on our multiplication table; the 0 column should be as; zero times any number should be that same number. The ones column should be all addition; 1x0=1,1x1=2,1x2=3, and so on. MULTIPLYING IS JUST A SHORTER WAY OF ADDING. In my culture we didn't even have a zero and we were masters at math. The number 0 was related to a flint stone. Stones in my culture is related to death; a stone has no movement no energy; therefore only 0x0 can equal out to 0. If we were to say 0 zero groups of nothing is still in fact a group one you call it a group but a group of nothing. If we made 2 squares but they both consist of nothing it is still in fact 2 groups of nothing. This is why the math will not work for our current currency. So a dollar times no dollars CAN NOT BE zero dollars. One dollar times one dollar CAN NOT be one dollar. So if you got a dollar and i got a dollar and we multiply our dollars you CAN NOT get one dollar; what happend to the other dollar?
when you times something by zero it produces zero amounts of the thing you are multiplying. When you times something by 1 it produces 1 of the things you are multiplying and so on. That's how multiplication works, the answer isn't how many numbers are left but what multiples are produced based on the amount you multiply something, therefore something times zero will result in zero multiples of that thing.
@@metrab8901 Ok how about take my 0 multiply by your 1 and you take the 0 and I’ll take the 1 since you don’t want it lol.
@@jahsonlevi8356 0x1 will equal a single multiple of the initial number, so if the initial number is zero then 1 unit of zero is still just zero. 0x2 is two multiples of the initial number: zero, two zeros equals what? Correct, zero again. and so on and so forth
@@metrab8901 This is what we are taught but it has no basis in reality. So if i were to say, 1 group of zero times 0 groups of zero should equal to 1 group of zero; not just 0. If we say 1 apple times 0 apples CAN NOT BE 0 apples or a x b can not be less than a. THERE IS NO 0 IN MY CULTURE. Whats the point of multiplying 0 anyways? Anything multiplied by zero SHOULD be that number you multiplied it by; so it is pointless unless you are trying to rip someone off. This is why he said "whats a quarter times a quarter", is it .50 cents or 6 dollars and 25 cents?(big difference huh). Like he said the value of 1 has not been defined. If I have an apple(1a) and you have an apple(1b) and we multiply our apples together (1a)x(1b) then the sum has to be 2. So if your trying to tell me 1x1 is equal to 1 then tell me what happened to the other 1 or apple. 2 x 2=4 makes since why; because 2+2 is equal to 4 right, this can be explained in nature. THERE IS NOTHING IN NATURE THAT CAN EXPLAIN 1X1=1.
@@jahsonlevi8356 if I have 1 apple and I multiply it with your 1 orange, the answer will still just be 1 apple, why? just because you are using 1 orange or 1 hand or 1 foot or 1 house it doesn't matter because we aren't talking about the objects only the numeral quantities they symbolize or represent. 1 is 1 irregardless if we are talking about coconuts or people or whatever lol.
So we are talking about things represented by their respective numeral quantity.
As for zero, 0x0 won't equal 1. idk how you don't understand that... nothing multipled by nothing will be nothing quantities of nothing.
Zero is a necessary part of mathematics it is what we start from it is the non-quantity. basically symbolizing that which is not. Again remember it's about numbers because the point of numbers is to be able to calculate anything that exists or doesn't, these numbers symbolize quantities, if I had 2 apples and they got ate what number of apples do I have now? You can't say no number because the point of numbers is to symbolize quantities,so we created a number for the value of no quantity: zero.
Remember mathematics and numbers are not attached to physical objects, they exist in the metaphysical realm. We know this because a number can be used to quantify ANY set of objects that fit into that value.
3 coconuts 3 humans 3 trees 3 plants are all 3 yet how do we get the number 3? Are we counting every individual atom of those objects? Why do we seperate a tree from the ground it's rooted into? Why do we seperate humans by their respected categorical groups like age, gender, hight?
Basically I'm trying to poorly show where do we get the number 3 from if we cannot find the number 3 in those physical objects? If you throw those things away then does the number 3 dissappear aswell? No it doesn't because numbers are a universal idea or system that exists outside the physical world, just like logic.
Mathematics and Logic are laws that work. They cannot be found in the physical world. We can use the physical world to explain some basic ideas or even apply logic and math to the physical world but they aren't dependent on the physical world nor do they come from the physical world, they are metaphysical.
It's because he is right. 1 x 1 is 2. Multiplication means to multiply. If 1x1=1 nothing is multiplied therefore not being multiplication.
ok let's keep going. you would then conclude that 1 foot squared is 2 square feet?
I said nothing about squaring anything. I said a statement about multiplication.
you didn't have to. the concept of multiplication is visualized by a rectangle whose sides have the lengths of the 2 numbers being multiplied. when a rectangle's sides are all equal, it's called a square. so what's your issue here?
😂
you trolling or what? 1 foot × 1 foot = 2 square feet?
Physics education is just as bad. There are engineers at aerospace companies who do not understand Newton's third law.
Can we at least give him some credit please. Can we not recognize that this is a man who, instead of taking drugs and going to clubs, like the vast majority of imbeciles in Hollywood, is instead, actually trying to do something positive -- and something original. And not everything he says is wacky. Look, it's very easy to read a book, understand the definitions, repeat them -- especially if you have a good memory -- it's much harder to think critically and think originally. Much of what he proposes, was proposed by Walter Russell, who is often cited as some lunatic. But Einstein didn't think Russell was a lunatic; in fact, he thought highly of Russell. Tesla, also had some fantastical ideas, many not currently testable, which Terrence cites, and which most physicists discard because they cannot test those theories, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those thinkers were not on the right track. And so I wish people would actually give him some credit for his attempt, as opposed to calling him insane. I think your analysis is fair, though, and much more diplomatic than some of the other responses on RUclips.
Russell and Tesla were crackpots. Perhaps you are not qualified to judge these matters.
It's not a fucking attempt, he is actively calling this "the truth the elites hide". He isn't some good faith guy "bringing new ideas", he calls you a mercenary of the system for not agreeing automatically with him. "Not everything he says is wacky" you're so easily impressed, literally every text ever written works like that.
@@Leadlight280 Of course it's an attempt, lol. Please lookup the definition of attempt and tell me what it says. He's attempting to create a TOE. Is it coherent. No. Of course, not. But it's certainly better than taking drugs, and expressing onself using profanity on RUclips. And anyone who reads Tesla can come to the conclusion, very quickly, that he was a genius.Tesla's research contributed to the induction motor, tesla coil, alternating current system, wireless transfer of power, x-ray technology -- I mean, get a grip with reality Mr. uneducated buffoon. He wasn't a crackpot; he was a genius. Russell, on the other hand, may have been doing some drugs; but I will say this for Russell; at least he wrote poetically and his map of elements, while not currently used, is not inconsistent with theory. I respect people like Terrence a lot more than people who don't try to create anything at all.
@DL-en7gq Tesla also believed it's a good idea to power lightbulbs with current through the air, like that won't kill you. Newton was into astrology, you're just doing a fallacy of authority. Electric universe doesn't create good simulations either.
And the problem With the current supposed enlightened contrarian rich guy is that he doesn't explain why his axioms are somehow better, how they solve black holes or whatever, we agree on that.
If math is all wrong according to Terrence, then how do satellites function? How did they calculate sending people to the moon? How do they build skyscrapers? How do fiber optics function?
I understand him though.
If you look at a cell inside the womb,
It multiplies by itself to become 2.
It doesn't divide because division maintains an original volume. Multiplication increases volume.
THANK YOU! Finally, somebody mentions units in this "conversation" plus the fact that there is no natural example of 1x1.
if I have one finger multiplied by my other finger, how many fingers do I have?
@@spirituallyizzy2731 2 fingers rubbing each other? ✌️
@@acurtis7 yup u said it, 1*1=2
@@spirituallyizzy2731 but what is 2 fingers multiplied? Multiplication is a shortcut to counting. Count 1 finger once. 1 finger x 1 is 1 finger. 1 finger squared on the otherhand is not sensible.
@@spirituallyizzy2731 what does it mean to multiply fingers? You're just adding in your response
The confusion is that 1x1=1 makes no sense. If you want to point out that 1=1, just say 1=1.
One beer times one beer is beer squared. Beer squared has the number two in the exponent.
So he is kinda right! 1beer^2
As well as you articulate this, it worries me to think that it's even necessary. When I was in school these were things I remember only very few people not understanding immediately on intuition, without having to word it.
Are we sure this is a crisis of the system, and not that people are being poisoned in various ways? Processed food. Unfiltered water. The most crude drug alcohol is treated like food. We recently had a highly suspicious event where many governments forced people to take specific medical treatments. People's brains have likely atrophied somewhat in lack of stimulation caused while their basic rights were violated over an engineered cough. Tiktok has made many in-capable of digesting anything that isn't 30 seconds and instantly funny. Drug prohibition has appropriated various substances as beer accompaniments for partying in our culture.
I think we're just reaching a point where all of these factors are taking their toll. People aren't what they used to be.
He missed that one day on the school. Maybe he only missed that one day.
From a semantic point of view (I am Spanish) multiply sth seems to effectively add sth in proportion . But something that I learned about english math is "times to" and it became crystal clear to me that it is a far better approach to multiplying sth. Now I explain this to my son using the english semantics on math. 9x1 times to. =9 (instead of 10); 9÷9 = 1 (instead of 0).
Math is counting. 0, 1, 2, 3...
Addition
0+1=1 apple
1+2=3 apples
And so on.
Subtraction is reverse.
3-2=1 apple
1-1=0 apples
And so on.
Multiplication is counting in sets.
1 set of 1 apple = 1 apple
1 set of 2 apples = 2 apples
1 set of 3 apples = 3 apples
2 sets of 1 apple = 2 apples
2 sets of 2 apples = 4 apples
2 sets of 3 apples = 6 apples
Division is reverse.
6 apples divided into 2 sets is 3 apples per set. And so on.
Like the word multiplication in math the atom is named incorrect also. The word atom is derived from the ancient Greek adjective atomos, meaning "uncuttable" or "indivisible". We have divided it into over 200 of the subatomic particle zoo with the accelerator/colliders.
E = mc^2
What value for energy?
What value for mass?
What value for the speed of light squared?
Solve for each expressed in an equation with values. The value of Pi is 3.142... The value of Phi is 1.618...
Why is the speed of light squared called a constant in the equation?
Why is the equation called energy-mass equivalency?
University level stupidity are deer in the headlights when ask to solve with values.
Average layman stupidity think the equation means energy and mass are equally the same. That equation would be E=m. They also think the speed of light is called a constant because the speed of light is constantly the speed of light in a vacuum. How cute.
C = 2 π r
Pi (3.142...) and 2 are constants and will remain the same values in the equation. Circumference and radius are in relation to meet equivalency of the equation.
E = mc^2 There are no units of measure that directly tie the equation together.
E = m × c^2
15 = 3 × 5
Solve for mass which has a value of 3.
m = E ÷ c^2
3 = 15 ÷ 5
Solve for light speed squared which has a value of 5.
c^2 = E ÷ m
5 = 15 ÷ 3
In the example: Energy is 15. Mass is 3. Light speed squared is 5. 15=3×5 Light speed squared will always be 5 as a constant. Energy and mass are in relation to meet equivalency. Mass could be 2 instead. The equation would be 10=2×5.
What kind of stupidity do you think Terrence Howard is making in his "loops" math?
You’re talking the difference between elementary, high school, university and professional level of understanding.
Nikola Tesla could explain why howards correct.
My other favorite way to prove terrance wrong, besides bringing into account set theories, set of all things factored by one and itself always equals itself. We can think of cardinal and ordinal numbers. When you here 1x1, you can think of one being cardinal, one being ordinal. We'll say out of any number, of sections of values, we'll look at just 1. And in that one section, count to the value, 1. What is the value of section 1? Obviously 1. If that sounded confusing, its because it is, because doubting the rules of arithmetic, and working out the proof long hand in terms of sets, countability, and ordinaity, is unnecessary.
Yes! He was talking about geometry. In geometry we don't really talk about 1 x 1. We talk about 1 unit x 1 unit = 1 unit^2. Which is a different result, as 1 unit is not equal to 1 unit^2.
I was thinking this as well. Somehow Howard misses this, I think
I just want to stop Terrence in the middle of one of his rants and say... "do you even know what the word ether means? explain to me what diametric means". He's throwing around so much jargon in order to sound smart. But, not only is he wrong, he's not even coherent.
Thank you for this my friend. So, 1 x 1 = 1^2 (but from convention we save ink and just write 1). But, this only holds true if there is a unit involved like you said the inch, i'm going to use the SI unit of meter. So, similarly, 1m x 1m x 1m = 1m^3 (1 meter cubed). It's easy to overlook these fundamentals as we would just write the number 1, when in reality or when put into practice we are increasing the dimension. Dot, Square, Cube.
Why bring in social scandal into your argument? You're adding more to the equation and thereby diluting your main point. Empire and Jussie have nothing to do with his mathematical argument. You're missing his point: in a linear system or 2D plane, the equation (1 \times 1 = 1) makes sense. However, Terrence's argument is that a 2D plane doesn't exist in a 3D (or higher-dimensional) universe. Therefore, in 3D, (1 \times 1 = 2) because in space, motion requires two points of reference. These two reference points must equal 2, reflecting the need to think of mathematics in terms of three-dimensional space rather than just linear planes.Terrence's perspective challenges us to think beyond traditional arithmetic and consider how mathematics can evolve to better describe and understand the complexities of the physical world. While his specific assertion that (1 \times 1 = 2) lacks support within established frameworks, the broader idea of reexamining mathematical principles in light of physical realities is a valuable and thought-provoking endeavor. The equation (1 \times 1 = 1) is an abstract concept that may not fully capture the intricacies of a three-dimensional universe.
The equation 1 multiplied by 1 is a scalar product resulting in a single scalar value. This concept represents 1 dimensional multiplication. If the multiplication is carried out between two vectors in a two-dimensional space, the resulting product would be an array with two values [x, y]. Similarly, in a three-dimensional space, the product of two vectors would result in [x, y, z]. The multiplication is a method providing a shortcut to add a specific number for repeated times. Scientists did not invent multiplication but rather it was derived from an existing concept of summing or adding. For instance, 2 multiplied by 2 signified adding the number 2, twice (2+2), to get the result of 4. On the other hand, 1 multiplied by 1 requires adding the number 1, only one time, and will provide an answer of 1. If someone claims that multiplication has a different outcome than providing a shortcut for adding a number a specified number of times, then it would be appropriate to call the operation by another name.
In summary, multiplication is an essential concept in mathematics that provides a shortcut for adding a number repeatedly.
However, if we take it to two dimensions, [1,1]*[1,1] is going to be 2.
@@talesbyAlgorithmHis argument is that we need new mathematical models that go beyond the 2nd dimension.
- **Binary Nature of 0 and 1**: In the realm of mathematics, 0 and 1 are the foundation of binary systems. They represent the most basic form of information: on and off, yes and no. However, in the 3D world, they lack standalone significance.
- **Functioning of 2 and Beyond**: In 3D space, the numbers 0 and 1 only become meaningful when combined with 2, forming a trio that establishes depth and volume. You need three points (0, 1, 2) to define a 3D space.
- **Theoretical Nature of 1D and 2D**: The 1st and 2nd dimensions are theoretical constructs. The 1st dimension involves a single line, and the 2nd dimension adds a plane, but both lack depth and volume. They are essential for understanding basic concepts but do not exist in our tangible reality.
- **Reality of the 3rd Dimension**: The 3rd dimension is where we live and interact. It involves depth, volume, and the complex geometry of our universe. Our universe is heliocentric and composed of spheres, making it inherently 3D.
Therefore, to fully understand and describe our 3D reality, we need to develop new mathematical models that account for additional dimensions beyond the binary simplicity of 0 and 1. It's that straightforward.
@@talesbyAlgorithm His argument is that we need new mathematical models that go beyond the 2nd dimension.
- **Binary Nature of 0 and 1**: In the realm of mathematics, 0 and 1 are the foundation of binary systems. They represent the most basic form of information: on and off, yes and no. However, in the 3D world, they lack standalone significance.
- **Functioning of 2 and Beyond**: In 3D space, the numbers 0 and 1 only become meaningful when combined with 2, forming a trio that establishes depth and volume. You need three points (0, 1, 2) to define a 3D space.
- **Theoretical Nature of 1D and 2D**: The 1st and 2nd dimensions are theoretical constructs. The 1st dimension involves a single line, and the 2nd dimension adds a plane, but both lack depth and volume. They are essential for understanding basic concepts but do not exist in our tangible reality.
- **Reality of the 3rd Dimension**: The 3rd dimension is where we live and interact. It involves depth, volume, and the complex geometry of our universe. Our universe is heliocentric and composed of spheres, making it inherently 3D.
Therefore, to fully understand and describe our 3D reality, we need to develop new mathematical models that account for additional dimensions beyond the binary simplicity of 0 and 1. It's that straightforward.
@@KareemDaKing I am not sure what you meant, but we use 1s and 0s to store data because of how machines work.they do not limit anything. They simply store data and are not related to math.
Good video. It's important to maintain empathy and try to understand where the other person is coming from
not students poor quality teachers, lots and lots of poor quality teachers.
it would consume too much resources and just confuse them. it's okay to learn already proven facts as rules.
3:10 how rude to say eggs are unaffordable. But beer is perfectly affordable? And at 4:15 not mentioning the possible unaffordability of beer?
A dozen eggs is $1.80 to $5 depending on the quality. Most people can afford eggs.
I must be a moron too because I don't even understand his logic. I can't follow his train of thought, he loses me. It makes no sense to me what he means by 1 x 1 = 2? How does that even compute in his mind? Multiplication is... multiplication, I mean just read the definition, it can't be more clear. Terrence Howard is cooked.
You can only multiply abstract numbers. You cannot multiply real objects, You can only divide them.
Your cells multiplied to create you
Your cells multiplied to create you
Is an animal a real object? They multiply all the time.
He is right when it comes to physical objects not math
"Moderately successful actor" LOL He's was the highest paid actor on ironman $585,366,247 worldwide, with $318,604,126 from domestic audiences and $266,762,121 from international audiences. Howard is a A list actor, and one of the best. He might be wrong about math etc.. But, as an actor he's amazing. Give credit where credit is due.
good for him, I'd never even heard of him until someone asked me about the "mathematician" Terrance Howard's "proof". had no idea he was an actor until I looked him up. I haven't seen the first iron man but I did see the second (where they replaced him).
guess I didn't realize how popular he was, never intended to undermine his career.
Iron Man really took a toll on him...
Jesus did break the laws of math. Torrence could be right.
Multiplication is about finding area. An object that is 1 inches in length by 1 inches in width would yield an area of 1in². 1inx1in=1in²
He must also believe 1 X 68 = 69. Profound.
That one is in and of the sense, itself. This is philosophical.
It’s funny considering that fundamentally, mathematics is an agreed upon set.
But in the same stroke, it’s not a belief, It’s a finding.
You can have base 10, or base 60.
Objectivism is not an invention.
Terrance Howard is crazy , but let me play an enabler for a moment 1^(1)×1^(1) = 1^(1+1) = 1^(2) = 1. I found Terrances' number 2.😂
I understand what he’s saying and yes we do need to make room in physics for 3D equations. But 1 x 1 = 1 is not an abstract concept, it is a fact. If you have an apple one time, there is just one apple. That is all that 1 x 1 = 1 is saying.
No. 😂its not a fact. Its not based on any logic. Its a convention. An agreement. Sam as agreeing that for multiplication we use X as the sign. How is it a fact 😅
... if you view "x" as a relationship, then you may find that it forms "another" "entity", "2" in our earth language of maths/attempts at humans communicating with each other and all that is... ?
🙏🏽 🌳🕊💚
Now I am even dumber
The angle of the dangle = the heat of the Meat.
(1 x 1) = 1 and (1 x 1) = 2 both are correct.
Tangible (Original x Duplicate)1 x 1 = 2
Abstract mathematics 1 x 1 = 1 but so does 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 ...∞ x 1 = 1
Mathematical Abstraction:
1×1=1
Physical Interpretation:1 cell×1 cell=2 cells Original + Duplicate = 2 cells
Extension:
Single Multiplication:
1 cell×1 cell=2 cells
One original cell and one duplicated cell.
Multiple Multiplications:
(1 cell×1 cell)×1 cell=2 cells×1 cell=4 cells
Each multiplication step doubles the count (original + duplicates each step).
Detailed Mathematical Process:
First Step: 1×1=2
Original + Duplicate = 2 (1 cell + 1 duplicated cell)
Second Step: 2×1=4
Original + Duplicate = 4 (2 cells + 2 duplicated cells)
Third Step: 4×1=8
Original + Duplicate = 8 (4 cells + 4 duplicated cells)
Summary of Interpretation: Original + Duplicate Concept:
Each multiplication by 1 creates a duplicate, effectively doubling the count each time.
Physical Reality Representation:
1×1=2
1×1×1=4
1×1×1×1=8
Conclusion: Mathematically:
1×1=1 (abstract)
Physically:
1×1=2 (original + duplicate)
By extending this logic, the multiplication process mirrors the exponential growth observed in natural phenomena like cell division, where each division step results in a doubling of the cell count. This interpretation underscores the dynamic relationship between abstract mathematical concepts and their real-world applications, particularly in biological processes like cell proliferation.
When discussing the physical interpretation of multiplication, particularly in contexts like cell division, we sometimes consider
1×1 to equal 2
This interpretation reflects the idea that when one entity is multiplied by another, it results in the creation or duplication of two instances, rather than simply retaining the original entity. While the traditional mathematical understanding is that 1×1=1 according to the identity property of multiplication, in certain contexts like duplication or replication, we may view it as 2.
It's important to recognize that mathematical concepts can have multiple valid interpretations depending on the context in which they are applied.
Digital Replication: In digital technology, such as computer programming or data replication, the concept of duplication is prevalent. For instance, when copying a file on a computer, the original file remains intact while a duplicate is created, resulting in two identical files. In this context, 1×1 can be seen as the original file being "multiplied" by the copy operation to produce two files.
Cloning: In biology and genetics, cloning involves creating an exact genetic copy of an organism. When a cell is used as the starting point for cloning, it undergoes a process that results in the creation of two genetically identical cells. This process mirrors the concept of multiplication, where one entity is replicated to produce two identical instances.
Production and Manufacturing: In production and manufacturing processes, the replication of components or products is common. For example, in a manufacturing plant, a single machine may produce multiple identical parts or products through replication or duplication processes. Each repetition of the production process effectively "multiplies" the number of components or products produced.
If one is religiously inclined, God, a single entity, created everything. How about the Big Bang instead of God? Same principle but without the mysticism-a single event (or thing) became more than one. We also live in a universe. That's a single thing but with an inherent value greater than one. Both the religious perspective (God creating everything) and the scientific perspective (the Big Bang leading to the universe) align with the idea of a single origin giving rise to multiple entities. This is analogous to the physical interpretation of 1×1=2, where one entity duplicates to become two. The concept of the universe as a single entity with an inherent value greater than one parallels the abstract mathematical idea where 1 represents unity, and the physical interpretation where duplication leads to growth and multiplicity.
1×1=1⇒2
This is the most beautiful explanation of what Terrence is attempting to convey. People are so stuck in what they believe to be true, that they can't open their minds to understand a different perspective.
So much idiocy holy shit.
What does it mean to multiply a cell by another cell? A file by another file? Why interpret it like that?
All your examples are adding one, or multiplying by two, it's like asking "what's half of the letter g?" It's complete confusion.
It's not 1 times 1=2
It's
X1 + X2= X1 + X2 (set of 2 components)
You aren't multiplying the file or the machine part or the clone by itself.
You are taking the blueprints, producing, pasting or cloning based on it and adding how many copies you want into the folder, conveyor belt or cloning facility.
1*1 + 1*1 if you want, one of itself+ one of itself.
No reason to change numbers like this, no reason to interpret it in this new way and acting like you did something.
God added things, it wasn't God², the Big bang was divided. Did I multiply the apple by another apple to make apple slices? No, I divided the apple, this doesn't even hold for physics which it's the point of the theory.
What problem does this mental masturbation solve? How does it give us any insight? Cute way of looking at it I guess.
"1+1=1 because 2 drops become one big drop" is the inverse of this, the cell got divided, now you have ½ the cell 2 times. No cell squared.