Thank you! Idk why people are entertaining his "theory" that a literal 8 year old learning how to do multiplication in elementary school could disprove 🤣
@@mpkgotbeatz2061 You have 1, but zero times. So you don't have 1 because you have it zero times. The first part of a multiplication is a hypothetical, it's an incomplete or unsolvable equation until you get the second part.
The function is "f(x) = x(x)" if x=1 then "f(1) = 1(1)". Multiplication is a contraction of a factor. If I scale something from 1 along a ratio of 1:1, then you get 1 because you did not change it at all. If I have 1 apple per set (1/1) and I have 1 set of apples, then I have 1 apple. You are not comparing 2 things. You are scaling 1 thing by a factor of the second value. If I have 2 sets where the set is 1 apple per set, then I have 2(1/1) = 2/2=1.
@@heyalun just realized I made that typo lmao. I meant 1x1=1 but I guess my brain was so focused on 1x1=2 that that’s what I wrote. Not gonna fix it tho since it’s pretty funny.
@@danbrown3103 terrence is pretending ... he doesnt know ... in real world math works ok, but if you go to quantum world 1 * 1 = 11 ... because string can vibrate in 11 different dimensions ... 1 action 1 string 11 different outcomes ... math even support this ... BUT the way he is explaining is obvious that he read something, doesnt graps the idea and now he is trying to replicate it ... butchering it completely
For those of you who don't know, mathematicians settled this in the 1800s. Long story short, the real numbers (i.e , all the numbers we commonly use) are something called a field. A field is a mathematical object that is the basis for a lot of the math we use (e.g. addition, multiplication, division, calculus, etc.) Every field must have something called an "identity element" for multiplication. The identity element for multiplication (call the identity element i) is a number such that i × x = x for any number x For the real numbers, we define 1 as the identity element for the real numbers. So if we let x =1, we see that 1×1 =1 So Terrence is wrong. He is wrong because BY DEFINITION 1 x 1 = 1. Kudos if you read this. 😁
Is an identity means 1? I don’t think so. And what if our identity element is 2 or anything else? In such case the above demonstration will collapse. For my part we should pay attention to what Terrence is raising.
@abdoulkadermoussasiddo1946 There is a little bit more to the explanation I gave. The real numbers are a specific kind a field called an ordered field. Essentially, this means that all the numbers have a specifix order (i.e. -2 < 3 , pi < 4, etc). By definition, 1 is the multiplicative identity for the real numbers and 2 defined as 1+1. We can define other numbers in other ways as well. For example 3 is just 2 +1 where 2 is defined from before. 4 is just 3+1, etc. One thing you might notice is that we are kind of "building" the set of real numbers. We started with the idea of a field with a mulitplicative identity and then we defined the numbers 2, 3, 4, and so on. Without adding too much complexity, every field must have two operations with two identities for those operations. For the real numbers, the two operators are multiplication and addition. 1 is defined as the multiplicative identity (i.e. 1×x = x for any number x). 0 is defined as the additive identity (I.e. x+0 = x for any number x) There is more to this. All members of a field (other than the additive inverse) must have a multiplictive inverse. Furthermore, every memver ofna field must have an additive inverse. This gives us negative numbers and fractions. Something called the axiom of completeness gives us all the other numbers. I know this is a lot, but the point is that all of these ideas are formalized.
@MrOod67 We define multiplication as: a×b = a added to itself b times. For example, 2×3 = 2+2+2 =6 In the case of 0×1, you have 0 added 1 time (i.e. just zero). So it is just zero.
@@fireburnseverything I was actually asking specifically regarding the field theory you mentioned and the identity element, but having re-read your original post I see now I misread the equation: I read it as i * x = i, which obviously isn't correct in most cases.
This is the time of awakening! Some people will never wake up and others will find their true purpose! A dummy laughs and ridicules something he doesn’t understand a wise person benefits from helping others!
My calculator and 3rd grade teacher Mr Sumnter says it's 1. 1 times anything is equal to itself...his math anit mathin'...and they hosts trying to be polite
It’s insane how the dude in the video is so fucking stupid but yet so confident in himself I find it amazing cause I’m relatively intelligent but struggle with my confidence even when I know I’m correct. There should be a science deduction to the study of people below average intelligence we need to know why some people just can’t understand basic concepts and how they become that way
you clearly dont understand his point and thats not entirely your fault because very smart people have a problem explaining themselves clearly. essentially he is talking about a mathematical fallacy that presents itself in quantum physics where the idea or concept of 1x1=1 or 1x0=0 breaks down and becomes false. similarly how Newtons law breaks down and becomes false the closer you approach a black hole. it doesn't mean that Newtons law is wrong but it cannot be applied to a black hole. you need to replace it with Einsteins theory in order to solve it. the same can be said for 1x1. as you aproach things at the quantum level, the equation breaks down and is no longer true and therefore must be replaced with something else. thats his point. 1x1 still is 1 when dealing with basic math but the further away from basic math you get, you come to find that it doesn't work. he has successfully brought this up to be audited and they are still discussing this at Oxford as i type this. this is an actual problem in quantum physics. so while we like to joke and be funny calling people stupid and crazy only to find out they were right makes us look foolish.
@@ailuosi7241 I got time today... Condescension may suit you, at the same time I never called him stupid or crazy. Highly intelligent people have a challenge articulating in social constructs not their knowledge. You know it, you can explain it. If he was trying to flex, it failed. Using the claim that 1x1=2 can be proven by entering it in a cell phone calculator is flawed. That math wasn't mathing. I do agree that if he wanted to explain the quantum math approach in a more palatable way a simple "1x1 as we know it works in basic math, however, it becomes false when applied using math in quantum physics" which would have created a mind blown teachable moment 🤯 not a wtf is he on my teacher and calculator is saying this moment🤔🙄.
@@spencer4324 the 1x1=2 comment he made was a reference to something he had said prior to the conversation he is having in the clip. go watch the whole thing. they didn't put in the equation 1x1. he brought that up to make a point about how he knows they heard him say it before and thought he was crazy for saying it. so he was proving a mathematical fallacy by showing a loop through the square root of 2 where he proved that x^3=x+x=2x which is a loop that shouldn't occur. they were laughing and joking until they did it themselves and found out he was correct and then they stopped laughing. this formula in mathematics is completely wrong and yet he just showed them that it actually works yet it shouldn't. again, you failed to understand his point and mine at the same time and i never said you called him stupid and crazy. he literally says it in tbe video that thats what people were saying about him. and if you truly have the time then actually watch the full clip and you will see that they never typed 1x1 into the calculator to get 2. again you just don't get it.
@@ailuosi7241 Either you failed to understand or I'm not clear is that I'm commenting on the short that was shown. I'm not disputing his or your claims that beyond the basic math the equation is a fallacy. I said so. There is no link to the longer version of video nor will I search for it, for that I don't have the time. The creators of the video obviously didn't want to highlight the mind blowing moment or they would have narrated the story differently with added link to proof of the claim. Given the short the math isn't mathing based on the information edited and provided. My calculator and teacher still reflects my aforementioned claims. You're still debating the equation and missing the forest for the trees... I suppose it's that social construct I was talking about earlier.🤷🏾♀️ It's okay to agree to disagree.
Multiplication isn't an action therefore it doesn't require a reaction. 1x1 = 1 because multiplication is a representation of a value. 12, 6x2 and 3x4 are all the same thing in "different languages"
Ok, if I go up to someone and ask "can I kick you just this one time." Would they get kicked once or twice? That one ask times that one action would equal one kick. Yes or no?
I am in no means saying I agree with Terrence, but if I kick something I would have exerted a force that I generated. Now if I were to kick you, I would also feel pain because a force is being exerted back onto me from your leg. At a molecular level I would think there were 2 “kicks” in your example.
@@daniellepugsley3130okay so if McDonald’s sell a cheeseburger for $1 and you buy 1 cheeseburger and they charge you $2, are you just gonna sit back and accept that?
@@dannyave4dapeopleno you should probably look it up. He's actually legitimately crazy. Look up a speech he gave at Oxford years ago, he's literally out of his mind and thinks he knows secret mathematics.
@@dannyave4dapeopleno he saying 1x1 is 2 lol bec it’s multiples which would be more not the same number but we have be programmed to believe the answer is 1. If yu get enough people to believe in a lie it becomes true.
I think he’s gaslighting. The calculator answer is also one. X is just how many times the other number is repeated. 1x1 is the same as saying one once. Now if you start talking about quantum mathematics and two numbers holding the same position, that’s something else entirely.
I was terrible maths until I started to use it in engineering. I love some of Terrences thoughts on the circle of life but 1 x 6 = 6, just as 1 x 32 = 32, just as 1 x 1 = 1 wakey wakey.
Thank you for this. I’ve been seeing these Terrence Howard videos going viral and I’ve been trying to tell everyone he is trolling. Another thing he tries to claim is that there are no straight lines in nature, but light itself travels along a straight path. Even wave forms which he likes to talk about travel in straight paths even if they are composed of waves. It’s scary how many people in the comments of some of these videos are just gobbling this nonsense up like snake oil.
1 Singular, It is not multiplied until it becomes 1+ 1 ....2 a multiplicable number and so on... The wording "Times" is another word to mutiply and 1 is a single number that is why you can't "Multiply" past it's singularity unless you add.
@@nikokaapayou know really has he tho? Every body is claiming what he says is false but he literally created solar inventions to sustain energy from the sun designed models and everything I’m going to be 100 percent honest I think he is Nikolai Tesla incarnate I really do people is calling him crazy but what he’s saying is plausible
@@nikokaapa say what you want but I know something amazing happening when it’s happening I believe this is a rare man a true mad genius whom could literally change everything about the world today
Quick clarification. He's basing his concept off of photon multiplication. Meaning if it makes another of its self by multiplication there would be 2. Interesting concept. Do your own digging pawns.
When you multiply any number by 1, the result is always that number itself. So, when you multiply 1 by 1, you're essentially saying "take one of something and keep it as it is," which equals 1. Multiplying by 2 means you're adding another set of the same quantity, which is different from just keeping one set, hence the result is 2.
But that doesn't make sense in the physical world as multiply means to make more of or procreàte. If we say each multiply action results in one child, then 1*1=2, yourself and your child. Now there are 2 instances of your bloodline in this world. Math doesn't exist just for maths sake, it should have some meaning in our physical world and not just a thought experiment. Why is it that addition and subtraction is easy to explain in physical objects but multiplication is so complicated with rules we were just programmed to take as fact that don't make physical sense but are there just to make their , the math gods, equations agree with their agenda.
@@AF-ib8ec Multiplication in math represents repeated addition or scaling, not procreation. For example, (1 \times 1 = 1) because multiplying one unit by one still gives you one unit, reflecting the identity property of multiplication. In physical terms, 3 groups of 4 apples are (3 \times 4 = 12) apples. Procreation is about addition: 1 parent + 1 child = 2 people. Multiplication describes consistent relationships, like calculating the area of a rectangle (length (\times) width) or determining probabilities. These rules aren't arbitrary; they model patterns we observe in the real world.
@@bryant362I guess the point of 1x1=2 is to redefine the math not to adhere to it tho, if I multiply one time would I not double by definition? That’s the best way I can think of what he means.
This short start at the end of the point he made. Watch the full clip before you judge someone. Nowhere in this short did he say 1x1=2. We need to do better with researching people before calling them crazy. This man is an intellectual that may not be appreciated until after death, but more power to him and may his legacy live in. ✊🏾💯
@@akashgaur-ie2bz thats not how you do RHS=LHS you clown. you gotta divide or multiply both sides with the same number. you cant just isolate a portion of one side and change(multiply/divide) it while you multiply/divide the whole of the other side
I'm just as confused as the next guy, but clearly there is something not right in the fact that 1X0=0 and 1X1=1. There is just that gut feeling that there is something seriously flawed with these 2 multiplications.Yes it is not as straight forward as multiplying numbers bigger than 1, but I would not be as dumb as some folks here who beat on their chest and say - but the calculator says otherwise.
1x0 means: take one, zero times OR take zero, one times This will always equal zero. 1x1 is found in the same manner. How can there be something seriously flawed with the results coming from those operations?
@@Message1inthesameyou do realise that numbers are just symbols that represent quantities right? Like 2 x 4 just means 2 lots of 4. 1x0 would be one lot of 0. But it doesn't matter what arbitrary number you stick in front 0 in a multiplication it will be zero. Any hypothetical amount of zero is zero it's just an abstract notion
@@whome1636 I disagree. Interpret instead that 1 actual thing taken zero times corresponds to this actual thing never being present in the first place. Conversely, nothing taken 1 time is still nothing. Then we have consistency. But we have no guarantee that mathematics correspond to the real world in the first place. By Gödels incompleteness theorem, we cannot even prove that mathematics itself is consistent. But we really hope that it is! We can, however, use it as a tool where we find it applicable and useful. Your interpretation renders multiplication by zero useless and mathematics is in some parts open to interpretation, so we interpret it in ways that make it useful to us - or at least we hope to do so.
It doesn’t make sense but it does. Here is what I understand when he says 1x0=1 and 1x1=2: If I take my cat and multiply her by 0 then I still only have 1 cat If I take my 1 cat and multiply her 1 time, now I’ve got 2 identical cats.
But 1x0 is 1 group of 0 or 0 groups of 1. Your cat being multiplied by 0 would mean there is a 0 groups of cats. Or the cat=0 and theres no cats at all. 1x1 cat is 1 group of 1 cat which = 1. Whichever way, the numbers represent VALUES. Why are people arguing about elementary level math??
@otometal is right. Multiplying is the same as adding groups, not some type of extended addition. I understand what he's saying but we must remember, actors get paid to lie to us. It's literally their job to lie. 1x0 is the same as saying 1 group of 0, which means the total is 0..and 1x1 is the same as 1 group of 1, meaning the total, which comes from addition, is 1.. 5x10 is 5 groups of 10 ones, which when added equals 50.. it works, no need to reinvent the wheel
They told us math is racist, next they will tell us its subjective, then its individual to everyone, and finally each number isn't unary but rather can identify as a wide spectrum of numbers, perhaps it even follows a probability curve centered on its assignment at discovery.
@MrOod67 lol I think your right about the first part, but every number is unary, including integers and floating points. Each number, interger or decimal represents a fixed point. Any alteration of that number represents a completely different value regardless of how close their values are. 1.0001 is a different value than 1.0002. Think about radio frequencies. Those two frequencies on a remote control would most likely not control the same TV.
He is definitely wrong. Sqrt(2)^3 = Sqrt(2)*2 Expand the left: Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) = Sqrt(2)*2 Factor out the right: Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) = Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2) The equation balances out. Dude just failed algebra. He can confuse himself and others who aren’t good at math, but he ain’t gonna confuse me because I’m Asian.
Lmao I typed all this before doing the calculation and thinking about it: ----------- Hold on, when you factored out the right, you turned "Sqrt(2)*2" into "Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)*Sqrt(2)", which is Sqrt(2)^3 Sqrt(2)*2 is not the same as Sqrt(2)^3. --------- I feel silly now and I see you weren't joking haha. Although this wouldn't work with any other number as far as I know
@@Pogohontas. lol, yes, when an equation is presented, the equation doesn’t mean it must balance out for all values of x. You have to solve for x. Here’s another example: x^2 = 5*x I make a false claim: your calculator is broken because it thinks the square of a number is just 5 times that number. Here, I want you to start with the number 5…. That’s because this equation is only true for x=5, the equation does not have to be true for all values of x. The idea is simple, but I can see how it can be confusing for someone who isn’t that great at math.
The thing is, people mistake a genius to be the one that answers, but his genius is not the one answering the question but rather asking, leading into deeper thought, in the case of 1*1, I believe the mistake is seeing the two 1s, as magnitude instead of seeing 1 as a function of magnitude and the other a function of location, it's a magnitude space relationship, rather than two magnitudes interacting, 1 event occurring in 1 place is 1, 1 event occurring in 1 places or locations is 2 and on and on, and 0 event occurring in one place is no event just a place or potential while an event with no place to occur wouldn't occur, giving rise to the multiple interpretations of 0 times any number or the other way round
"Its like when I'm right I'm right, when I'm wrong I could been right, so I'm still right cause I coulda been wrong, you know, and I'm sorry cause I could be wrong right now, I could be wrong, but if I'm right..." This makes more since in this moment than the movie when he said it. That's true art if he was expressing this energy during that scene.
Something I’m noticing that’s being overlooked is the part where hes doing his detox thing and he’s showing joe a picture of what he used to look like before hand, and joe said it himself “ you look 15 years younger now than how you look in this picture” so clearly, at the very least, he’s not some totally delusional nut who is off his rocker. We have at least one thing we can directly point of his that has clearly worked/ is true
1 is One all by itself, in order to multiply one by one; you must first add, one *equal* in value & substance , before you even start; therefore making it two or do the 1 magically appear out of nothing.
By that logic yes you are correct however, 1*0 for example you cannot say if I give you 1 thing 0 times and so on. Are you pretending you're giving me 1 thing which is actually nothing? Why does the 1 even exist in the first place? By that logic only 0*0 equals 0 We have been taught that any number times 0 answer is 0 which in logic doesn't make sense, the number being multiplied by 0 shouldn't just disappear, it should still exist.@@kaibradburn-lewis7310
@@DF-we4pt 0 × 1 = 0 zero multiplied by anything real numbers(2, 3, 4 etc) will be zero. you camt have nothing (zero) and dive into multiplying it, you gotta add something(aka not zero) before multiplying it
1 x 1 is the equivalent of saying there is one apple and 1 exists. 1x 2 is there is 1 apple and 2 exists. So 2 apples. 1x0 is there is 1 apple and 0 exists. So 0 apples.
1 * 1 equals a minimum of three. Let me explain a man and a woman already too before any processes are made, according to natural law. Math is a representation of decoding life. It also is supposed to reflect with clarity of life. So how could one plus one equal to when 1 + 1 is already two before the equal sign before the processes of the operational sign is even done. 1 and 1 is 2 before anything happens 1 + meaning come together, with another entity of one cannot be too because two is already on one side of the equation. The equal sign means the processes of the operational sign Plus or division or multiplication means that something happened operational to add or subtract from the original existing parties. 2 already existed before any operational was included. So the true answer is x. And X has the option of equaling 3 - 9. Even with animals, two animals come together and have the option of having multiples instead of just the same numbers residing after the process has happened.
I wonder how people counted stuff before maths were found. I was just trying to think how it’d be done, but I guess it was just “ooh” for 1 item, “ooh ooh” for 2 items haha.
As a school graduate hes wrong, but as a grown man in a manipulated misguided world his answer give u something to think about, i wouldnt be suprised if 1x1=2, hell i see (2) 1's lol but hey cnt easily tell someone something theyre taught all their life that its wrong
For real who knows he can be right or bat shit crazy but him questioning it isn't mad, Just because something been a way since forever does it mean it's correct . I'm not gon bash him for what he feels ,.
If I have 1 dollar only one times I have 1 dollar. If I have 1 dollar zero times, I have zero dollars. If I have 1 dollar two times I have 2 dollars. Does that make sense Terrence?
1x2 is two 1's add them you get 2. 1x1 is just one times itself which is 1 so therefore it cannot anything other than the initial number that is being multiplied, 1x1=1, 2x1=2, 3x1=3 and so on.
He's adding the result of multiplication to the input. He's not recognizing that the objective is just to get the multiply and then stop. Input 1 Out 1 Output added to input is 2 - this is a product of adding not multiplying.
Actually what multiplication means is 2 × 1 = 2 in other words it means 2 in one place which is still 2 But 1 × 1 means 1 in one place which still leaves it single as 1 He's very smart and most of what he says are right bug this one can be seen in multiple different points of views
This got me kick out school in the fifth grade because i I told my teacher one times one equals two and he told my mother I needed a tutor I told him you need a tutor.
Me too, in third grade I was kicked out of math and put into an art class for asking these same questions, fundamentally questioning 1×0=0. Where did the one disappear to? Lol
The reason he is correct come down to the meaning of words. Multi means more than 1. Ply means 1. So 1x1=2 or one more than one is 2. 1 is not more than one so it can not be a multiple.
So, I am really, really trying to understand this. I understand the definition of "multi" and "ply." However, if we multiply 9×1≈9. Or is that wrong also?
That's not what multiply means in mathematics. Saying 2 x 4 means there are 2 occurrences of 4 which is the same thing as saying 4+4 which is 8. Multiply is literally just a shorthand way of saying add this number to itself x amount of times. Like instead of saying 4+4+4+4+4 just say 4 x 5. This isn't rocket science
@@TheGiantMidget again you prove his point. Words, like numbers have meaning and function. You can not by definition multiply 1 or 0. Naturally numbers are a quantity, so to start with 4x0=4. 4 then add 0; as you say multiply means adding, I get 4 but you say I get 0, which makes more sense? He is saying the entire premise of multiplying 1 or 0 is unnatural and impossible.
@@loveandlight4440 by definition you cannot multiply 1 or 0 is what he is saying. If to multiply is add a number to it's self by a number of occurrences. 9 by itself or 9 one time is not the same as 9x1; because 9 is a quantity and 1 is a quantity. 9 more than 1 is 10 or 9x1=10. Naturally numbers have meaning and function just like words.
So wait, random thought, is there credence to the idea that there is a lesser star in the centre of every planet…if we consider Terences assertion that planets are born from the main star in its galaxy?
Never forget this is the same guy that thought he should be paid an equal amount as the main star Robert Downey Jr, for playing a supporting character 😂. They were wise to ditch his stupid a$$ and get Don Cheadle.
My calculator says 1x1=1. I see what he's saying. Each 1 is a separate character. You can't do anything other than add them because it's the product of both 1's in the equation. The other 1 doesn't disappear. Just like in 2x2=4. The 2nd 2 doesn't disappear.
Multiplication is a derivative of space and matter. Say you have a square box that is 1ft x 1ft x 1ft. How much space is in that square? 1ft cubed, if it was just a square box it would be 1ft squared and just a length it would be 1 foot long.
that makes no sense. you can't have a box of bananaS if there is only 1 banana. bananas implies plural meaning more that one so how can you have a sigular plural. you make no sense at all. you would either have a box with a banana meaning 1 banana in a box or a box of bananas meaning an unspecified number of more than 1 banana in the box. but you can't have a box of bananas with only one banana in it. that logically and grammatically makes no sense.
If 1x1=2, then what does 1x2 equal? Terence is fundamentally wrong and doesn’t understand the principles of multiplication: the Multiplier, the Multiplicand and the Product. The fact that he can walk around espousing such an elementary error in thinking and not get immediately called out for it is abysmal.
