I'm certain he has been told that 1000 times. Anyone who listens to him and knows what multiplication means in Maths can tell he just doesn't know what it is. He just is the type who won't listen and is convinced they are right. I mean, I've seen two guys here on RU-vid comments who were arguing about him being right despite many people explaining to them what multiplication means in Maths. They don't want to know the truth, they want to be right.
That's the actual question isn't it? Is be fruitful and multiply an empty container (set) or does multiplication have to first undergo division before it can multiply similar to the mitosis of two daughter cells.
@@amppupyovibe5010 2...2 times would equal 4, 3....3 times would also equal 9. Honestly, I'm only trying to be funny, I'm not seriously suggesting we change math vocabulary to satisfy Terrence.
There is an assumption that in a multiplication function that is expressed as a x b, or substituted with real numbers, e.g. 1 x 1, that the two terms in the equation represent two equal term, that is, that 1s are real rational numbers that represent identical values. This is however not the case. The first tem is actually a real number that represents a physical thing, e.g. 1 apple, or 1 cow, while the second term is only a notation that represents the number of times the functon of multiplication will be applied to the first term. The second term's 1 is therefore not equal to the second term's 1. Math is therefore imprecise when it uses the exact same notation of the real number 1 to represent the first and second term in the multiplication equation. The terms are not only unequal but represent two clearly distinct and different concepts. The math problem comes if we try to make the first and second term real numbers that represent equal or similar concepts in the multiplication function. It becomes immediately clear that it is illogical to try to multiply 1 apple with 1 apple. We can't multiply an apple with apple, or a cow with a cow. However, if we do, then 1 apple times 1 apple would be 2 apples on the left side of the equation which must be represented on the right side of the equation as well - or we'd need to have an explanation of where one apple went on both the left and right side of the identity if the identity principle is to be upheld. And this is where what Mr. Howard's assertion holds - when we multiply two real numbers each representing a physical item - e.g multiplying 1 apple x 1 apple. And the current logic holds of 1 x 1 = 1 only if the second term's 1 no longer represents a real number, but is just a math notation. And even if the second term is not a real, and represents only the function of multiplying, we still do need to reflect it on the right side, or do some seriously mysterious and complex juju to lose the second term on the left' and right to make the identity function hold. To add to the problem, in addition the first and second term are equal: that is in 1 + 1 = 2 holds because both the the terms on the left side are real numbers, and equal to right side's 2, representing the equality in both the left and right side of the identity. We have no problem stating this as I cow plus 1 cow, nor in stating 2 cows on the right without breaking the identify function. The application of the principles of rational real numbers in addition is consistent, logical and rational across the first and second term, and requires no jump as we must do in treating the second term in the equation as imaginary in multiplication and division. And note that unlike Mr. Howard I can 'teach' and also use the term 'imaginary' outside of its strict use in those highly trained in its use in math. Therefore, class, we must, even if reluctantly, agree that when we both terms in 1 x 1 represent real, rational numbers in the first and second term then Mr. Howard is right that to not break the identity principle the answer of 1 apple times 1 apple is 2 apples, or account for the second apple on the left and right side of the equation. And if the second term is not a real number representing an equal value to the first term in 1 x 1 we should find another notation for the second term, or, if its a real rational number account for the second term on both the left and right side of the identity if the answer is 1 to maintain the identify principle for consistency. And if 1 in the second term is not a real number and does not meet the principle of rational numbers we should also show the working of how we appley second non-real term in the computation if its not a rational number - your workings class on why the second term's 1 in 1 x 1 is not a rational is your home work, and show clearly how a non rational number that can meet the rule that it can be divided by another real number and not be zero and be a notation in your homework. Further, math is based on the principle that addition, multiplication and division represent the same functions when applied on real numbers, while the math notation in multiplication requires the second term not to be a real number - actually only addition includes the real number in both terms, while as demonstrated multiplication and division do not. Therefore 2 + 2 = 4 is two real numbers in the first and second term, while the second term in 1 x 1 should perhaps have an i to state imaginary. And we must appreciate we have applied logic and philosophy to jump the many hoops we need to in order not to break the identity principle. And if you have followed up to here class it becomes crystal clear that the multiplication and division functions introduces a myriad of issues that Mr Howards requires of us to apply ourselves to that we have swept under the table by introducing imaginary numbers, and we must begin to unpack the jumps in logic to make the math with non rational numbers and imaginary numbers in multiplication and division math. The shocking conclusion that we must therefore arrive at class is that if the first and second term in the function 1 x 1 is a representation of two equal identical real numbers and terms, representing real things, that is, 1 apple times 1 apple, or 1 cow times 1 cow, our math is not equipped to handle this, and Mr. Howard is completely right to ask to say the answer is 2 to maintain the identity principle, or show in our workings where the one apple or one cow went on the left and right side of the identity. And if you are still with me, can we accept that this might need an explanation other than that Mr. Howard is insane?
Exactly what I've been considering. Most hypothetical examples people use to disprove Terrence employing 0 or 1 are fictitious null situations that do not need to be defined and define themselves, which can be represented by 0x0=0, or 1x1=1 (1x 0=1 in a Terrence system), as nothing real is being multiplied per se, only theoretically, representing no change in the answer.
I don't understand how you came to this conclusion? In multiplication, first number represents how many are there in the group and second number represents the number of groups. How is it that you came to the conclusion that second number is imaginary? let's take 3x3, it is not that each number represents number of apples. Rather, first number represents number of apples in the group and second number represents number of groups, so 3 groups of 3 apples are added on the table. 1x1 there is one group that contains one apple, how many apples are added on the table? Mathematics is language and each equasion is a form of expression. The equasion exists in the realm of mathematics, this equasion is not forcing us to use it, we are using it only when one apple is added once on the table and equasion is a way to describe it. This is how mathematics and reality meet. Just like words, if you see something in reality you need to follow the rules of language to describe it correctly.
@@The-Underground-Man If you multiply something by zero should it disappear from existence or remain unchanged? In that case, 1 x 0 = 1 in the same way 1 + 0 = 1. Why should there be a definition change between multiplication and addition?
@@The-Underground-Man and this is the problem of the language of multiplication. 1 goat plus 1 goat = 2 goats poses no problem. But in multiplication when the first and second term represent physical items the math will not compute. And therefore we use the first term only in the abrastract, with second term is always a transformation term. The inability of multiplication to deal with physical items can best be expressed by stating the problem as 1 goat x 1 goat = 1 goat x 1 goat, a non computable math problem. We can continue to accept this limitation and only compute when the first term is abrastract, and second term is a transformation of the first term, like you suggest, or solve the problem of multiplying when the two terms representing two physical objects.
Core etymology issue Physical reality and theoretical reality are in need of new language to dig deeper into the situation The inherent mental position on the topic reflects core tenants of the personality you posses
Yes, which is obviously wrong (as a matter of English definition). That would be like arguing the word "cat" refers to all creatures with four legs. No, it doesn't. It could... if we had a different language. But we don't.
@@ThePolysauryour argument is lazy AF. Terrence is proposing a new model for multiplication, you can’t just say “well by our current model his new model would be wrong” well of course it would. He’s proposing a new math… you can’t just say 1x1=2 and keep everything else the same, of course it will be wrong cause you’re still using the same math
@@HiddenKnowledgeSeeker101 Terrence is not proposing a new type of multiplication nor mathematics. He doesn't understand even basic mathematics, and you're SO close to getting the point without realizing it. He has never once proposed an alternative to mathematics. You're defending someone who does not understand elementary arithmetic. By your logic, nearly every elementary schooler was somehow the first to invent that math. You think a single invalid solution to a product of scalars is an attempt to redefine math? No, you're being dragged by a cult of people who know nothing about math. There's no "new math" coming from this. Your statement shows that you're also not aware of how math works axiomatically nor how proofs are considered for falsification purposes. There's no "new math" being invented here. You guys simply have no idea what you're talking about.
@@TheLethalDomain except he is proposing a new mathematics. Did you watch his interview? His exact verbiage is “our fundamentals are off so therefore everything else is off.” Im not saying he is right, I’m simply saying that I don’t think most people understand what he’s really trying to say. And I do understand math, I have an engineering degree for what it’s worth… again I’m not saying he is right I’m just trying to clear up what I believe is a common misconception
We have never really known what Reality is? We do not currently really understand fundamentals such as Time, Gravity, Infinity, Black Holes, and other Dimensions! You can add Space Time to that list also!
I mean according to the "standard model" we are supposed to believe that 90% of the matter in the universe is completely undetectable. A lot of academia likes to pretend they know a lot more than they actually do while falsifying studies to get desired results of whoever funds the research. This "theory of everything" is a cancerous hubris throughout the scientific community. I am a geologist and see it everywhere I go, people think they know everything which has always seemed ridiculous to me. Terrence Howard does have patents, look them up they are pretty cool actually.
There’s plenty end time phenomena. It’s an agenda. Powers that be don’t want us to agree on shit brotha its a matrix and they want to divide us, make us turn on each other 😔
@@Create-The-Imaginable well, we have models/explanations that are more plausible than others. But if you start off by claiming 1x1 = 2, then you live in another reality than 99,9% of your fellow humans. If more claim to live in separate realities from our mostly agreed upon, its the end brother.
As it currently stands, 90% of reality is undetectable matter. This seems like bullshit to me, but the standard model says it exists, which hints at some rather large errors in our equations.
@@TURK_1821 is 1, but 1 can represent 2 by adding another grouping them together and say 1 of 2 is 1, people with d.i.d are walking representations of 2 or 3 people in 1 body, that’s what Terry is trying to get you to understand.
Terrence said he understands that if you simply use 1 to signify how many times you counted some "thing", of course it will = 1. But this is not the taxonomy we should use because it's divorced from physics and therefore nature. He's saying that an apple x apple = 2 apples. Whereas 1 x 1 where "1" only signifies a "non-thing" is unnatural. So 1 can only have one definition (that also goes for zero) a.) how many times an operation is performed, b.) a "real" object. c.) how many times a thing exists. These are not at all the same thing. Furthermore, if the answer is (a), then the term is not "multiply" is not what is meant. "to count" is what is meant. Thus if you ask a cell to divide or multiply itself zero times it still exists.
Yeah exactly. So many people in the comments don't even know what Terrence is suggesting. I'm a mathematician and his ideas aren't as wild as most people have been brainwashed to believe.
The problem isn’t with math. The problem is that Howard isn’t good at applying math to the real world. If you ask a cell to multiply by zero it still exists because it didn’t multiply by zero. It’s not a thing you could do in that context. It doesn’t disprove the concept of multiplying by zero. It just shows that you can’t do it to a cell. 1 apple times 1 apple isn’t 1 apple, but it isn’t 2 apples either because apples times apples gives you apples squared, which is meaningless. The 1*1 = 1 part is fine. You can do it with length, though. 1 inch times 1 inch equals 1 square inch. You can draw it on a piece of paper. The real world examples he gives don’t show inconsistencies in current mathematics; they just show that Terrence Howard isn’t good at describing things with math.
@@UndereducatedScientist Yeah… but also no. There may well be internally consistent systems in which 1*1=2, but that is not what Howard is suggesting. He’s saying that, in conventional, standard, ordinary, boring real numbers with standard, boring, ordinary mathematical operations, 1*1=2, because 1*1=1 isn’t a balanced equation. I’m not saying the ideas in this video are wrong. I’m saying they don’t do anything at all to help Howard’s case.
@@mcr9822good point but he is also arguing that the application of theoretical equations, while logically consistent, that dont actually describe the physical world leave inadequacies. We know that to be true. You cant describe reproduction mathematically. 1 + 1 humans = 2,3,4+ humans. We all know math to be a language of measurement and calculation. But anyone who a fairly fundamental understanding of physics at scale, micro and macro knows that our mathematics and physics are not complete. I'm all for hearing people's thoughts and ideas and poking holes in them the best we can to test them out. But the vitriolic dismissal of anything "outside of convention" is simply Plato's cave in action and herd mentality.
@@Mr.Amazing-vx3li Look at the examples he gives for current mathematics not matching the real world. He tries to multiply dimes by dimes. He’s not addressing the inadequacies of current math to describe the universe on a quantum level. He’s just bad at applying math to the real world. And 1*1=2 doesn’t solve any of the inadequacies, it just makes new ones.
Ooooooooooh; That Maths debate about whether Maths is natural or man-made is at the heart of this. I had no idea 1*1=2 is about philosophy. I watched the whole video.
Far more important than proving or disproving axioms, statements or rules in arithmetic, is defining exactly what particles (photons, quarks, leptons, bosons or any other) really are DIGITS, with which we perform calculations in our minds. Once this is done everything else follow automatically form that certainty. So long as this remains uncertain, everything else would too.
When you get a bill in the mail it doesn't have a negative integer, put the amount in the calculator then minus that amount (which would be the bill amount) and it will balance to 0. Why don't they send the bill amount with negative integers? Because your bills are prepaid. You pay them twice.
Multiplication is like repeated addition. For example, 7×1 means you have 1, seven times: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1=7. 1×1 means you have one instance of one. Since there is only one "one," the result is 1. NOT 2
Have you studied the wave conjugations or opened up the flower of life properly? Then maybe you would understand that the angles of incidence contradict 1 x 1 = 1.
I distinctly remember as a young child being perplexed by 1 x 1 equalling 1. One of a few moments during my early education where I felt something internal telling me this is incorrect but having no conception of why. Another one was the big bang theory. I couldn't elucidate a proof of why, but I do think Howard is correct in his assertion that there is something wrong at a fundamental level with our mathematics. It's human arrogance to believe we've got it all nailed down when our entire system is relative to the Universe and our starting reference point is ourselves!
If 1x1=2, then (1x1)=2, and (2)x1=3. That would mean any number x 1 is NOT ITSELF, but ITSELF + 1. Example: 2x1 is not equal to 2, but instead is equal to 2+1 or 3. 1x1=2 1x2=3 1x3=4 etc. This would also mean that 1 squared is not 1, but 2 and the square root of 1 is not 1, but 1/2 or .5
1x1x1=1. Why? because 1x1=1. so we get 1x1x1=1x1=1. In fact, let's take it a step further....let's do 1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1...=? We are multiplying one by itself infinitely many times...what do we get? ONE. WHY? Because 1 is the multiplicative identity of the real numbers! If you deny that, you will obtain braindead conclusions such as 1=2 as some other shmuck listed in these comments.
@@voidzennullspace So what you are saying is the number 1 is fake. Its not a real number, right? Who made that rule, and why are you following it? It figures that the first number used in the mathematical laws of this universe would be fake. What a great foundation to start a great illusion.
@@AnT8. Are you remedial? No, the number one is NOT fake and it is real....you just don't understand how multiplication works. One is the multiplicative identity of the real numbers. The same mathematics that provides 1x1=1 also provides that 0+0=0. Similarly, 1x1x1x1=1 and 0+0+0+0=0. Why? Because 0 is the additive identity of the real numbers. Not a lie, not an illusion and not fake at all. Again, you just don't understand how multiplication works especially with the real numbers. You also fail to see the connection between addition and multiplication. Please go back to elementary school and correct your ignorance.
Yes, he talking about a concept that was fairly new to myself. It is called dimensional reduction. If you have a space of 1^10, that means there are 10 dimensional reductions required to represent 1. He just doesn't have the words to describe dimensional projection.
@@TitiTiti-ie2fw Imagine two one-dimensional entities, each represented by a line segment of length one. In a two-dimensional space, these lines can intersect or align to form a new geometrical structure. By projecting these one-dimensional lines into a two-dimensional plane, they can create a configuration where the product of their intersection or interaction produces an area, rather than simply another line. In this scenario, the product 1×1 can be interpreted as forming a square with an area of one square unit. However, if we consider a specific transformation or projection rule, the interaction between these dimensions might yield a different result. For instance, if the projection transforms the interaction such that the *overlap or intersection represents two units of measurement instead of one*, we can symbolically represent this as 1×1=2. Dimensional reduction involves simplifying a high-dimensional problem by reducing it to fewer dimensions while preserving certain properties or relationships. This concept is essential in data science, where high-dimensional datasets are projected onto lower-dimensional spaces to make analysis more feasible. Consider a high-dimensional space where each dimension represents a different aspect or quality of an entity. When we multiply two entities in this high-dimensional space, the interaction between their respective dimensions *could result in a cumulative effect greater than what is observed in lower dimensions*. Let's envision a scenario where we reduce the complexity of a two-dimensional space back to one dimension. Suppose each dimension contributes equally to the result of a multiplication operation. If we started with two one-dimensional units and projected them onto a two-dimensional plane where each unit is transformed in a way that they contribute an additional factor, reducing this back to one dimension might leave us with a doubled effect. This process can theoretically lead to a situation where the product 1×1 in the original dimensional context results in 2 in the reduced dimension.
@@TitiTiti-ie2fw Imagine two one-dimensional entities, each represented by a line segment of length one. In a two-dimensional space, these lines can intersect or align to form a new geometrical structure. By projecting these one-dimensional lines into a two-dimensional plane, they can create a configuration where the product of their intersection or interaction produces an area, rather than simply another line. In this scenario, the product 1×1 can be interpreted as forming a square with an area of one square unit. However, if we consider a specific transformation or projection rule, the interaction between these dimensions might yield a different result. For instance, if the projection transforms the interaction such that the overlap or intersection represents two units of measurement instead of one, we can symbolically represent this as 1×1=2. Dimensional reduction involves simplifying a high-dimensional problem by reducing it to fewer dimensions while preserving certain properties or relationships. This concept is essential in data science, where high-dimensional datasets are projected onto lower-dimensional spaces to make analysis more feasible. Consider a high-dimensional space where each dimension represents a different aspect or quality of an entity. When we multiply two entities in this high-dimensional space, the interaction between their respective dimensions could result in a cumulative effect greater than what is observed in lower dimensions. Let's envision a scenario where we reduce the complexity of a two-dimensional space back to one dimension. Suppose each dimension contributes equally to the result of a multiplication operation. If we started with two one-dimensional units and projected them onto a two-dimensional plane where each unit is transformed in a way that they contribute an additional factor, reducing this back to one dimension might leave us with a doubled effect. This process can theoretically lead to a situation where the product 1×1 in the original dimensional context results in 2 in the reduced dimension.
I stopped the video at 32 seconds in to see if I could come up with a reasonable explanation as to why someone might assume 1x1 to be equal to 2. I have not watched his interview or beyond 32 seconds into this video. In log space multiplication is addition, meaning exp(log(3)+log(2))==3*2. log(1) = 0.0 and exp(0.0)==1. The issue is that 0.0+0.0==0 and exp(log(1)+log(1))==1 but exp(0.0)+exp(0.0)==2. If the order of operations matter, which it should in this case, then that would suggest that 1x1 !=2 but also gives a decent explanation why one might think that. In order for 1x1 to be equal to 2 the following would have to be true log(1)+log(1)==log(2) or 0.0+0.0==1 in log space. Basically that says "nothing plus nothing equals something". Interestingly, exp(0.0)==1 implies that one could multiply nothing with a constant and get something. So that would make it fairly reasonable to assume that in log space 0.0+0.0 might not always equal 0.0. I don't see how one could make the case that log(1)+log(1)==log(2) but I could see a perfectly valid argument questioning if it is always equal to 0 in every case. I'd like to see a counterexample showing where it isn't equal to 0. *edit* I'm glad I watched this video and was able to suspend disbelief. My most interesting takeaway quote from this is "Simply declaring something as self-evident doesn't make it true or rational. It remains an assumption rather than a proven fact". A relevant and related example could be how so-called "intuitionistic logic" or "constructive logic" flat out denies one of the axioms in modern and classical logic(law of the excluded middle). Intuitionistic logic is no less valid or rational than classical/modern logic and is often used in modern times for so-called "constructive mathematical proofs". I've always had a question that lurks at the back of my mind "If I can provide a single counterexample to an axiom is it actually axiomatic or is it dogmatic? If it is dogmatic, how could it possibly always be true in every possible situation?"
Let's say 1X1 is what you owe for your Taxes, and if you get it wrong the IRS kills you, even if you are wrong in their favor. You sending 1 Dollar, or 2 Dollars?
@@khornelor6 I think the argument isn't so much that it would always equal 2 but rather that there might be cases where it does. I'm not saying I agree with it but rather I'm saying that there is a way that basic reasoning could lead one to question if it is always the case in every possible situation that 1x1=1. There are cases at the extremes like at the extreme micro and macro levels where that might not always be true. The basic argument that I took away from it was "Simply declaring something as self-evident doesn't make it true or rational. It remains an assumption rather than a proven fact". To prove something is always true is really hard but proving that something isn't always true is usually a lot easier. All someone would have to do is provide a single counterexample. I can not provide such an example but maybe someone else could provide some extreme edge case(s). Maybe using something like intuitionistic logic someone could provide an example where our assumption that 1x1 always equals 1 is in some way analogous to the empirically incorrect assumption from classical logic of the law of the excluded middle. Basically that means that the basic assumption that something must always be either true or false is itself false. There are examples where a statement could be true and false at the same time, hence the need for intuitionistic/constructive logic.
@@crypticnomad 1x1 is always 1, even in the recent breakthroughs were they were able to create a reaction that created more energy then was put in. You could make the argument that 1x1 =>1. However if you dig deeper its not the case as the extra energy taken out is created by the mass thats used in the reaction.
@@khornelor6 basically that sounds similar to "parrondo's paradox"? I read an interesting paper on the subject called "Parrondo’s paradox and complementary Parrondo processes". Here is the abstract "Parrondo’s Paradox has gained a fair amount of attention due to it being counter-intuitive. Given two stochastic processes, both of which are losing in nature, it is possible to have an overall net increase in capital by periodically or randomly alternating between the two processes. In this paper, we analyze the paradox with a different approach, in which we start with one process and seek to derive its complementary process. We will also state the conditions required for this to occur. Possible applications of our results include the development of future models based on the paradox." In the paper they discuss how the basic assumption that the paradox arises from a specific set of numbers is false and that something like 3/4 so-called "losing processes" have a complementary process.
Isn't math just a language we invented and conventionally accepted? Why everybody talks about numbers like they're real material entities? Did you ever see a 1 made of organic matter walking on the beach or hiding in the mountains? Math is something we "invented" following geometry so there's the chance that this language it's not entirely correct so everything is possible...Anyway, isn't the cell process an exponential division of the same entity, producing more entities identical to the original more than a "multiplication"? We could say it's an "holographic exponential division" so nothing to do with multiplication.
Just like language at some point math breaks down. The logic just doesn't work. The other problem is that math has to follow a pattern. You can't fit everything into a simple pattern. Multiply by zero and you will find this break down.
@@UndereducatedScientist It's not 'self-evident'... the proof is that it works. Self-evident means we understand it to be true because it's obviously true. Our Math works... we know this, because we use it, and it works. That's tested... you wouldn't have to test it, if it was self-evident. It would just be evident.
@@theclimbto1you missed the point of the video. Just cause something helps us describe the world doesn’t make it mathematically true. Try watching again
1x1 = One room with 1 person in it. How many people total? 2x2 = Two rooms with 2 people in each room. How many people total? 3x1 = Three rooms with 1 person in each room. How many people?
@@TitiTiti-ie2fw Yes. Stop assuming that people who disagree with you did not review the information. They did. They are just more intelligent than you (about this topic) and, therefore, are not sucked into the gibberish, nonsense, and irrelevance discussed in the video
No, no, no. He doesn't understand why they didn't want to pay him more and then even nothing anymore for his role in this superhero movie. That's why he is so focussed on the literal meaning of multiplication and that there is no 0 in nature. A genius move.
I love how so many people are trying desperately to prove the argument in the video wrong but not one person has managed to successfully do so. So many people reacting rather than thinking It must suck to know your entire world view was a lie.
it's wrong because some people want to prove this by using a separate discipline from math incorrectly (e.g. the person who created the video gave a biology example in an attempt to prove the Math). That would be an incorrect application of math in relation to Biology (particularly cell mitosis). The production of a secondary cell from cell multiplication (in this case Mitosis) includes acquisition and utilization of external resources from the outside system, so as to produce a new cell from the original individual cell, to understand how this produces two cells from one cell, one then must consider the laws of thermodynamics. A proper rendering of this is, a cell replication by mitosis is a form of Division not necessarily multiplication.
@@ramsestebogo1041no that’s incorrect. The basis of the argument is that our current system of math is inherently irrational so 1x1=1 is not as mathematically true as most people believe
Math is the language of geometry, so let's solve this with a picture. Get a piece of grid paper. Draw a line 4 units long on the horizontal axis. Draw vertical lines 2 units tall at each end of the 4 unit line. Close the box off at the top with another horizontal line, making a rectangle four units wide and two units tall. Count the squares inside the rectangle. You will find there are 8, because 2 times 4 is eight. Do the same thing, except start with a horizontal line one unit long and vertical lines that are also one unit long. Count the squares inside that new thing you've drawn. Do you find one or two? Whatever is in there is the product of one times one. I defer to your investigation.
@@HiddenKnowledgeSeeker101 I'm not sure what you mean by "rational." If you mean everything can be expressed as one integer divided by another, then irrational values exist - but doesn't mean they are insane. Rational means different things in different contexts. Rational in math means "ratio-able". A rational number can be expressed as a ratio, or fraction, of integers. I see nothing that isn't self-evident in multiplication. It's a defined operation. Buy one apple one time. How many apples do you have? (Hint, one times one apples. You have one apple.) What math isn't sane and built of self evident component operations? By the way, if 1*1=2, then 1*0 should equal 1. Therefore, a $1,000 balance on a zero percent loan should accrue $1,000 interest every month. If you have a zero percent loan, are you going to do the right thing, correct the bank's flawed "times zero" multiplication, and pay what you think you owe? 😂
1 × 1 is not possible. It's like trying to multiply idea's. 1 and 0 are not to be used to add or subtract from. They are for recognition. To be placed in a series to give shape. It's how we visualize. CODE !
"it's like trying to multiply ideas" no... no it's not... you people jsut dont know what multiplication is lol and are trying to make it something it isn't. as has been stated 1 x 1 = 1 squared... a penny times a penny = penny squared... it's not a thing, it doesnt make sense... because numbers are not fucking objects. i dare any of you to go out and try to build something using the math yyou ppeople think you are proposing.... well, paroting, because all you people ( including terrance) do is parrot and pretend you know what is being said.
If you have 2 times 2 apples you have 4 apples. That is literally what it says. You have 2 apples two times. So you can transfer this simple logic to one times one. If you have one apple one time you have one apple. It doesn't have to be an apple, it can literally be anything else. So: 1 times 1 = 1 x 1 = 1. If you now 0 times one apple, that just means that you have an apple zero times, so you don't have an apple. So 0 x anything= 0 what is so hard to understand about 3rd graders maths?
Little Johnnie came home from school one day as learned as could be, and said, "At the dinner table, 2 fish you think you see. But I can prove them 3. Ther is one, and there is two, and one and two make three!" Papa replied, "Well if that it true, then Mama shall have one, I shall have two. And we'll leave the 3rd for you."
So many people on here mad because they can't expand their intellectual grasp to actually understand what Howard is saying here... It's sad, really how deeply the conventions of science have brainwashed the modern "sophisticated" man.
It is not surprising how violently people are protecting the system and how peaceful people are who have their minds open to the possibility that there might be something outside the system.
@@arturzathas499 open to change. Things change. New things are discovered and old ideas discarded. P.s you're subscribed to Teal Swan and you're questioning open mindedness?
Multiplication in mathematics and cell division in biology are different concepts. cell division is a process where one cell splits into two, which is not the same as multiplying numbers. Thanks! Apophenia is the tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things and it can be a symptom of unfolding psychosis.
It's funny how these people watch half the video and comment phrases like a clown who are stripped of wit. Watch it full before you embarrass yourself lol he actually makes sense and you guys just can't take it 😪
C.S. Unnikrishnan discussion on 'Was Einstein Wrong to Ignore Ernst Mach' discussion. He breaks down Terrance Howard's claim pretty well on wave propagation and relatively.
Okay then, for the sake of argument, how are you not going to run into irregular numbers with this new multiplication method? And please elaborate on its supposed elegance and superiority when solving mathematical problems.
It’s literally the most elegant mathematical system. The way Terrence Howard thinks, 1x1=2, makes everything actually complete and way less complicated. What are you talking about?
@locallyringedspace3190 Okay, so explain why. Please elaborate. Give us a detailed explanation on how this brilliantly new mathematical system of his is going to solve any complicated engineering problem we encounter in the world today. And if the conventional system is so wrong and erroneous, I would suggest not making use of anything in the world that has been built by using that faulty system of mathematics. Just to be sure you understand, that refers to just about any technological advancement in existence today.
@@dannyvanswieten2484 Would immediately attaining the exact solution set to any algebraic equation suffice as a complex enough problem? Or what about a mathematical structure that makes it easy to enumerate the set of primes, and factorizations of all composites? You don't think Terry's theory gives rise to that?
@@locallyringedspace3190 Sounds all great and all, how about some examples in support of those claims? And how about answering the other questions about how conventional maths has helped resolve basically every engineering problem in history, if the maths were off on all things it were ever used on, wouldn't we be at a lot of risk just getting by in our world today? Oh and btw I don't believe his theory gives rise to all aforementioned claims at all.
Agree or disagree with TH.. it's amazing how many people cant even grasp his point. They cant understand his arguement at all. Or wont.. it's truly sad just how little critical thought so many people are capable of. "Dude said 1x1=2 😂😅😂.. what an idiot.. now let me get back to playing my video games with my inflated ego".. - most of the internet
I can grasp his point, he thinks that each one is an individual like a person, not an abstract valuation of a given sum. Which is where he goes wrong. Doesn't matter which given sum is defined in math, only that a sum is defined to create a tautology by logic. Math is a way of expressing the truth just like logic, so 1x1=1. 1x1 is another way of saying 1 in English. If you want to think of it from Terrence's perspective, he is saying that you and yourself equals 2 people, which is clearly not the case even on a philosophical level.
@@avinashjagdeo He thinks numbers do not refer to abstract valuations, for example, in multiplication all 1s are the same 1. Terrence thinks is there is 1 you x 1 him which would be 2 people, but that is just his misunderstanding of 1 and how numbers function in multiplication as abstractions of value.
Funny how people follow authority figures so strongly and defend others' ideas to the death before believing their own mind and forming their own logic and how quick people are to criticize anyone who does.
@@JakeGittes84It kind of comes across as pseudo intellectual nonsense. If I have one apple one times, I still have one apple. If I have 2 apples 1 times, then I still have 2 apples. If I have 2 apples 2 times, then I have a group of 4 apples because it’s 2 apples and another 2 apples. Which would be 4 apples. So if you give me one apple one time, I only still have one apple. I hope this clears things up
Math has rules and it works in the real world. You have to consider what you are multiplying or subtracting. And why. There are multiple reasons why 1x1=1 or 2.
exactly! there are more to this world that we haven't unlocked yet. if we aren't going to challenge what's already there then we won't ever discover anything more.
"1x1=1 or 2" - What a stupid thing to say. 1 unit multiplied by itself (meaning there is only 1) is still 1 unit. For smart people like you, I'll explain it: 1 apple multiplied by 1, means we have only one apple. 1 apple multiplied by 2, means we have two apples. We multiply because we don't want to add many apples. Example: 1 (apple) + 1 (apple) + 1 (apple) + 1 (apple) + 1 (apple) + 1 (apple) + 1 (apple) = 7 apples. It's long. So we do the multiplication: 1 (apple) x 7 =7 apples in total. It gets more complicated (not much) if you multiply baskets of apples. Imagine you have 12 baskets with several apples. Each basket has 6 apples. We multiply the bumber of the baskets by the number of the apples inside of them: 12 x 6 = 72. Do you people get it now?
the thing is mathematicians are already flexible when they use numbers and operation signs. in boolean math, 1+1=1 but mathematicians dont pull their hair out and panic because they are aware, as you imply, different definitions are being applied. as physicist hossenfeder and an oxford student who challenged terrence, put it: it's a matter of definition. even i don't fully disagree that 1x1=2, if you define it as 1 added to itself ONCE. or one object multiplying/duplicating once. but that's not what mathematicians are interested in tackling for the equation 1x1 for the usual set of problems they're handling such as 1penny x 1 or 1meter x 1meter. the IRONY is that this video uploader claims that we should be more flexible with our numbers, yet insist only terrence is correct and that 1x1 must only equal 2 because "1x1=1 is not found in nature and proving it requires circular reasoning". like i said, boolean math are not opposed by mathematicians.
@@GrammeStudio great to hear u speak about DEFINITION here. Cuz thats indeed what this is all about. Like with any word, wether its 'one' or 'plate tectonics'. Words are basically simply sounds we make with our mouths etc to convey meaning from our mind to someone else's. So.u gotta have common definitions or communication cant happen effectively, literally endangering survival. If I say WATCH OUT, A TIGER! its dumb to assume I'm talking about apples lol. When talking about one times one equals two, its very normal to use the COMMON DEFINITION of these words, like in my above example. Terrence on the other hand.....😂 Logic error galore imo.
the thing about group theory is that every group has his own kind of internal operation. If I define a group where 1×1=2 (and that verifies the four group axioms), then I might have a consistent and perhaps even useful kind of mathematical structure, but I am in no way "corroborating" 1×1=2, I am defining it like this
Maybe 1#%1=2 , in a mathematical operation called howardization ,where #% is the operation symbol. However, even that has to be consistent within the specific set of numbers, natural numbers in this instance, and the actor in question has not demonstrated any of the sort yet. Therefore , he is utterly wrong.
You can't easily define a group where 1 x 1 = 2 without breaking the axiom of associativity. Proof: 2 x 1 x 1 = (2 x 1) x 1 = 2 x 1 = 2 2 x 1 x 1 = 2 x (1 x 1) = 2 x 2 = 4 Why am I even typing this out? No idea. Also "corroborated" is the wrong word here.
In order to agree that 1×1=1, one must also agree that one thing can be labeled a group and also that "to multiply" doesn't mean to increase in number. There is clearly a valid argument that these two points are absurd. We don't question it because it's so deeply ingrained in us as truth.
@@keithmiller4079 When my son was first taught multiplication, his primary school teachers didn't call it multiplication, they called it "lots of". 2 lots of 3 oranges = 6, let's count them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6! We have 6 oranges. When we have 1 lot of 1 oranges, how many oranges do we have? Let's count them. 1! We have 1 orange! Yay! A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Whether we call it "lots of" or multiplication the concept is the same. It's not rocket science.
@@johngreig2824 If it's not clear, I'm well aware of the logic taught. What folks seem to be missing (or ignoring) is it's valid to question our teachings. Saying there's one lot of one orange is a strange concept, even though it keeps the general logic tidy.
@powerfulwords_ When we think of one orange and we have zero of them how many oranges to do we have... zero. So zero lots of 1 orange equals zero oranges. 1 x 0 = 0. How is that absurd?
What people are doing in multiplication in the equation a×b is using b for the number of a instead of b being the number of +. They didn't say take b of a and add those but add(+) a by b times. So b is not the number of a but the number of +. Unlike what someone said of 1 being added once and 1+1 being added twice, it's 1 being added no times it's just a number with no operation done to it while 1+1 is added once because there is one operation of adding(+) being shown.
So many people in the comments section criticizing Terrence are totally missing the whole crux of the argument: 1. Something being "self-evident" and "simple" IS NOT THE SAME as a formal, mathematical proof. 2. Just because a model can lead to technological advancements, is NOT EQUIVALENT to a mathematical proof. Something being self-evident is not a sufficient mathematical proof in a system which exhibits irrational behavior Everyone saying durr durr one group of one is one its so simple, is simply not understanding the argument.
MATHEMATICAL PROOF FOR 1X1=1 Axiom Axiomatic Approach Using Peano's Axioms, which are a set of axioms for the natural numbers. These axioms are: 1. 0 is a natural number. 2. Every natural number a has a successor, denoted by S(a). 3. 0 is not the successor of any natural number. 4. If the successor of a equals the successor of b, then a = b. 5. A set containing 0 and closed under the successor function contains all natural numbers (Principle of Mathematical Induction). From these axioms, we can define addition and multiplication. Defining Addition For any natural number a, a + 0 = a. For any natural numbers a and b, a + S(b) = S(a+b). Using these rules: - 1 is defined as S(0). - 2 is defined as S(1) = S(S(0)). Defining Multiplication 1. For any natural number a, a×0 = 0. 2. For any natural numbers a and b, a × S(b) = a×b+a. Using these rules: - 1 is defined as S(0). Now we need to show that 1×1=1: Proof Let's calculate 1×1 step by step: 1. Recall that 1 is defined as S(0). 2. Using the definition of multiplication, a × S(b) = a×b+a. Set a=1 and b=0: 1×1 = 1×S(0) By the definition of multiplication: 1×S(0) = 1×0+1 We know from the definition of multiplication that 1×0 = 0: 1×0 = 0 Therefore: 1×S(0) = 0+1 Using the definition of addition, a+0 = a: 0+1 = 1 Thus: 1×1 = 1 Conclusion We have used the definitions and axioms of the natural numbers, addition, and multiplication to rigorously show that 1×1=1. This proof is rooted in fundamental properties defined by Peano's axioms and the basic operations of arithmetic.
@@Shrey1g Those axioms are invalid because the series of natural numbers are inherently irrational. They're therefore based on assumptions rather than fact.
@@HiddenKnowledgeSeeker101 The Peano axioms are foundational and universally accepted in mathematics to define natural numbers. Natural numbers are inherently rational, not irrational. Get your grasp on basic mathematical principles.
@@Shrey1g The whole point of the video is that what is "universally accepted" in mathematics is actually based on irrational, unfounded assumptions. And no, they're not rational. Literally look up Godel's incompleteness theorems and Weyl's principles. This is ALL in the video... So many closed-minded people who don't even hear the other side's perspective before they decide to argue. Sigh
@@HiddenKnowledgeSeeker101 Gödel's theorems don't prove the Peano axioms wrong or suggest that natural numbers aren't rational. They mainly show that there are some things math can't prove, and that's okay. It's more about the limits of what math can do, not about questioning basic arithmetic. Weyl's ideas don't disprove that natural numbers are rational or challenge the validity of the Peano axioms. He mostly looked into deep questions about how math works and the nature of truth in math. His work doesn't really touch on whether basic arithmetic is sound. So many GIGAOPEN-minded people who gobble up anything that they hear or see before they decide to do their own research. Sigh
Sounds crazy. But also plausible. I don't think it's insane that math principles could work like that somewhere. After all, what we know it so limited.
Yeah sure, any convention can work any old way, but he hasn't understood the convention that is in wide use, and that everyone else seems to be able to consistently grasp.
Some things in math and science ARE conventions we use as sort of a shared 'language' of science. Others are direct descriptions of what's observed in reality, like if you eat 1 apple 1 time, you've eaten 1 apple total, not 2. The problem is Terrance doesn't know the difference of even why we arrived at these conclusions and conventions. The fact is some conventions could change, calling a banana a banana is a language convention, we could call it something else, but that doesn't change what it is.
@@MetalMaster49the fact is we should not leave out the possibility that some models may better account for those unexplainable phenomena in our current model than our current oneb
@@HiddenKnowledgeSeeker101 We don't, models change and expand to encompass new information as it's uncovered. Most of the models we have now already replaced inferior models in the past. The fact is it's on whoever proposes a new model to show why theirs is more accurate. He hasn't done anything of the sort, when he can create a smartphone using his science, we'll talk.
It's pretty relevant, if it weren't for people studying and advancing mathematics using logic the internet wouldn't exist. Time is a construct of our reality but you still use it because it has a function. If a number is so arbitrary i'll give you 1 dollar for 3 of yours seeing how it's meaningless. shallow puddle of piss tier thinking.
@@flinchus The computers that created networks that formed the internet exists because of 1s and 0s, that's it. Any digital assets is made up of 1s and 0s.
@@flinchus Since you aren't getting it, I'll get deeper on my thought... We created numbers, assigning them a name, symbol and value. Without this, math would make no sense to us on even at the fundamental level. Math begins to get tricky when dealing with micro and macro equations and numbers can run on forever. Most notably as it relates to physics. This is because the micro world gets smaller than sub atomic particles. We can't observe them yet, but that does not mean it does not exist. Pi is an irrational number because there is no thing as a perfect circle in nature. Space is forever expanding, so macro equations can have irrational numbers. The numbers make sense... Nature is infinite in it's design, and that is what we would expect. Rational numbers on the micro and macro scale would be scary because it would indicate a boundary in nature. I'm not a mathematician. I don't even have a high school diploma. I have a GED.
Just because something "works" doesnt mean its "true" existence of something like an occam's razor demonstrates that, im really interested to see where Terrance takes all this
Maybe you should open your mind to the endless possibilities of the universe, for starters numbers are just something we made up long time ago and many scientific facts have been proven incorrectly centuries after @johngeig2824
@@bobbiforester2587 I agree, but we also have to keep things real. Otherwise, we would have a lot more false beliefs than we already do. We also have to keep some kind of social cohesion. If every person goes off on their own individual flights of fancy using logical fallacies as a basis for their beliefs... society will fail.
@@johngreig2824these are assumptions back with Marie Louise von Franz, a psychologist, argues that our assumption about numbers being self-evident and completely rational is shaky. There might be more to numbers than we understand! Mathematicians like Herman Weyl point out the inherent irrationality of numbers. For example, the unpredictable distribution of prime numbers and the existence of irrational numbers challenge the idea of numbers being simple and straightforward. this simply tells us to strive for more knowledge. The video doesn't necessarily tells the real your saying is wrong it's just that there could more in to it
to say there's no hope for humanity just because a man is trying to open our mind to a whole different concept that you may not understand. Sounds like an old book that refuse to expands it's knowledge
Definition of multiply obtain from (a number) another that contains the first number a specified number of times. "I asked you to multiply fourteen by nineteen" increase or cause to increase greatly in number or quantity. "ever since I became a landlord my troubles have multiplied tenfold" So how does 1 x 1 = 1
Are you implying that the landllord's troubles are now "10 + 1"? Which would give us, as you might know, 11. But then we would say, his trouble had increased 11x. Plus the initial trouble 1x. Damn, that would result in a 12x increase... and so on forever. No doubt, Terryology works great!
@@jamesclark5093two, so if you reverse this process of cloning, you would have one. This is because you would be dividing by two, which would give you one. Similarly, if I were to not clone him (divide by 1), instead of having two separate copies of him, I would have one of him. This is what the identity property means.
Dude just read the first definition you wrote and run the numbers. Obtain a number that contains the first number a specific amount of times. The " first number" is 1 and the "specified amount of times" is 1. What number "contains" 1 just 1 time? You can do this I believe in you. If I said i ran a 1/4 mile lap one time, how far did I run? Was it 1/2 a mile? Was it 1 and 1/4 mile? Nope. It's 1/4 of a mile and I can't believe you're buying this shit😂.
When it comes to Terrance and others that criticize him, i look at it like a scientist that did his work and have proof of his work on a subject being told he crazy by normalor people that don't know what they talking about or studied the subject and only know what they been told. This is what get on my nerves.
@@pianetaerrante96 Multiplication - A mathematical operation that indicates how many times a number is added to itself. So what hard for people to understand 1×1=2 is saying 1+1=2 and this is adding 1 to itself one time. People basically arguing that 1×1=1 which is saying 1+1=1 is right, and 1×1=2 which is saying 1+1=2 is wrong. So 1×0=0 which is 1+0=0 which is the way they indoctrinated us in school to understand in school is wrong, and 1×0=1 which is 1+0=1 or just 1 because you don't add anything.
@@cameronthomas7804 no man, you are getting wrong the definition of multiplication... this things are done in elementary school. Go look at the definition of multiplication on Wikipedia or on any elementary school math book. By your reasoning 1 x 1 = 1 + 1 which not only Is wrong, but It suppose that summation and multiplication are the same thing, they are not! I suppose the thing is confusing you is "...the Number of times is added to itself": this does not mean take the number and add It to itself tot times, it just means add the number tot times. When I write 1+1 im adding 1 two times, which is of course 1 x 2, when I write simply 1 im adding 1 just once, meaning 1 x 1. Lets make an example with basic geometry: if I have a 1m x 1m square its area will be? 1m^2 and of course not 2m. I really cant understand how you people are confused by this.
@@pianetaerrante96 What I put first is the definition. That's why I copied and pasted the definition. This is the definition and rule that the school system established. So either you go look it up yourself and accept you been wrongfully taught or see the definition and ignore it and continue to be played. Why don't you copy and paste the definition you found? Let's figure the definition out together. Also did you read both comments?
@@pianetaerrante96 1+1=2 which is you adding 1 to itself one time. Just putting 1 doesn't means you add anything it's just by itself or just a number. 1+1+1=3 or 1×2=3 and here is an example of 1 added to itself twice. 1+0=1 or 1 or 1×0=1 because you take 1 and add itself 0 times or don't add anything. If you have a laptop and I multiply your laptop by 0 does that means your laptop disappears or you still have that 1 laptop? 0×any number=0 because no matter how many times you add 0 to itself you will have 0 or if you always adding nothing then you will still have nothing Any number ×0=any number because if you add a number 0 times or add nothing to it you will still have that number. 5×0=5 or 5 or 5+0=5.
According to ChatGPT, when a cell multiply itself, it first divide into 2 smaller and then synthesize new protein etc. to grow bigger. So, it's more like 1(a unit cell) times 1(how many cell) divided by 2(how many to split into), equal to 2×(0.5)(the cell split into 2 smaller cells). Then 2×(0.5+0.5)(each cell get something to grow bigger) equals 2(now there are two cell similar to the undivided one). He seems to missing some operation there, which means that something as simple as 1+1=2 have hidden operation too (even if it doesn't change anything, like +0, -0, ×1, ÷1 etc) but it depends on what is being represented as that 1+1. Edit: Here I was just saying that he might be missing/misinterpreted some details like the split and the growing so even if he was on the right track, he still skipped the split and growing part which is division and addition so he could have gotten 1÷2=2×(0.5+0.5)=2 (however the growing doesn't happen during the cell division, so I probably shouldn't include it there, but I can still say that he should be using 1÷2=2 instead for cell division). Then, wether he was right or wrong, I still feel like saying that there could be many math operation that we could have skipped without noticing (like I think he did) because the influence on the outcome is too small! Also I might be wrong about my 1×1 in my original post because I'm not sure what he means by 1×1 in this context, he could be saying, (1 cell) times (1 "cell division") equal to (2 cells), but that is closer to 1×(1÷2) not 1×1. So maybe he should be using the former? I guess that if he already knew this, to him, some 1×1 could mean/include 1×(1÷2). So to the 2 person who liked my comment: You might want to unlike if you do it because you think that I support 1x1=2. Sorry for the confusion Edit2: I knew the math doesn't work like this, I was just saying that there are other ways he could have misrepresent cell division in math, so the experts might have made similar mistake too.
@@MrIcculus6 I agree that it is division, as well as your replies to other people's comment in this page, here I was just saying that he might be missing/misinterpreted some details like the split and the growing so even if he was on the right track, he still skipped the split and growing part which is division and addition so he should have gotten 1÷2=2×(0.5+0.5)=2 (however the growing doesn't happen during the cell division, so I probably shouldn't include it there, but I can still say that he should be using 1÷2=2 instead for cell division). Then, wether he was right or wrong, I still feel like saying that there could be many math operation that we could have skipped without noticing (like I think he did) because the influence on the outcome is too small! Also I might be wrong about my 1×1 in my original post because I'm not sure what he means by 1×1 in this context, he could be saying, (1 cell) times (1 "cell division") equal to (2 cells), but that is closer to 1×(1÷2) not 1×1. So maybe he should be using the former? I guess that if he already knew this, to him, some 1×1 could mean/include 1×(1÷2). So to the 2 person who liked my comment: You might want to unlike if you do it because you think that I support 1x1=2. Sorry for the confusion😥
While working on some of my own amateuer nonsense equations, I kept running into Srt-2 and started to realize that logarithms break at value {1.0}. I'm trying to work out a math that can use proportional q to Q (quantity) values that can be adequately described as infinitely unique irrational numbers, infinitely resolving at lower and lower powers(the equivalent of infinite decimal places), according to a statistical Bell distribution projected to fit the exact scale of the orders at which the values "resolve". All of these numbers added together are equivalent to {0.9~repeating}, thus encapsulating an infinite set series of unique undefinable values within. The range of possible values is infinite until calculation, at which time a {q} value is arbitrarilty inferred and assigned a {0.x^Q!} irrational value as an exponent to a variable being isolated. Idk much about math so I'm most likely treading old ground playing around with this, and I'm probably trying to express theory as numbers without getting the deep niche math's behind physics, but... synchronicity is strong with this one I think. By this method, I think that reasonably useful conceptualizations of the subquanta base reality can be inferred... That may explain quantum gravity....? Probably not but math is still fun, so if anyone knows about any form of math similar to what I'm describing, please let me know.
Hi! math student here. The math you are working on reminds me of the subfield of number theory called "Diophantine Approximation". The basic problem is determining how well rational numbers (fractions) can approximate real numbers (think things like sqrt(2), pi, e, etc.). You should check out the wikipedia page and see if there are any similarities with what you are working on!
Math is a language, so it all depends on what you mean when you say an equation. There's no need to get too deep with it. It could mean more than one thing, but in the math we use in America, one times one is one.
@@christopheryoungbeck8837 it only means that object squared if the particular mathematical language you are using says so. When I say 1 times 1 one equals one, that’s what it means, because of the language of communication I am using says so. We have other words to describe how you square something. We say one squared, or two squared. All the bases are covered. If you want 2 times one to equal two, and you want to construct a building, all the people working on the project have to use that same formula, or the building won’t come out right will it? But I have to ask: what’s the point? What difference does it make?
The same reason why the word "nothing" you just used has meaning when describing something that doesn't exist. "0" is the numerical representation. Is it possible to have 0 dollars? Yes
@@bread3613 No, he really doesn't. He literally said that a moon would emerge from Jupiter's red spot, which is Jupiter's anus. He claimed that Jupiter's red spot is on the equator, just like our anus is on our equator (seriously, I'm not making this up). He claimed that the sun "defecated" the earth. Look, if you haven't watched his whole thing on Joe Rogan, just do so before you get behind the fool.
@@brandichtwins7936 There's lots of videos on youtube that can explain accretion disks and proto planets, and better yet, hundreds of books at your local library. The sun does not defecate them out.
I think it's hilarious how so many people in the comments are trying so hard to prove the video wrong, but can't. Everyone is just trying to argue without even watching the video 🤣
@@UndereducatedScientist I dont need to prove the mathematicians wrong, their arguments are correct. On the countrary the point of the video is clearly wrong, clearly a non sequitur.
@@UndereducatedScientist the video is just a big all non sequitur: they describe (with clear errors) works at the edge of our understanding of math to conclude that we cant discard theories like 1 x 1 = 2, which is like saying that we dont know what there was before the big bang so we cant discard the flat earth theory. Its just an attempt of presenting hard concepts that people cant properly understand to make a case for 1 x 1 = 2, which is just totally wrong. Enlighted enough?
@@johngreig2824 If from your perspective there is only one cricket ball, then there is only one. But if that cricket ball exists in another time line or universe, that one cricket ball could be infinite oo or two.
Even if i don't agree with this i appreciate you critically looking into what this man has said instead of fake prof dave just throwing off empty insults.
People like this deserve to be insulted. There are ONLY two types of people. Those that know shit and those that don't know shit. Terrance is clearly the latter, so he should STFU.
Math is a convention, in science truth is not important, what's important is for the system to work. A physic friend once told me that, and it perfectly explains the modern, boxed in, minset.
@@philsurtees you probably don't understand what I'm saying. Take the 1x1 example, we've all been taught it equals 1, and an whole system based on this allowed our civilization to progress, so the system is worth a questionable convention, because if you take a stick, and say I multiply this once, you'll get 2 sticks, unless in this case multiplying means doing nothing, which is eclxactly the compromise we accepted to build tech and society. Same is true for particle physics, there are no particles, there is no black matter, it's all a compromise to make the math work.
While math indeed involves conventions, dismissing truth in science is perilous, it's the cornerstone of understanding reality, not just a functional system.
@@HiddenKnowledgeSeeker101 literally all of our electronics, radio waves, telescopes you name it wouldn't work and wouldn't be possible if terrance is right
@@khornelor6 He talks about this in the vid. Just cause something allows us to understand the world better, is not the same as a formal mathematical proof
Just a lot of repeated jargin to get to the point that 1 cell multiplies to make 2. So that means 1x1, or something multiplied by itself, is 2. Silly semantic argument that isnt really logical. It essentially just equates cell division to the multiplication sign.
It’s more than a semantic argument, he’s saying that the whole basis of math is unreliable due to certain assumptions that mathematicians simply choose to ignore
@Someguytalking48 what certain assumptions are mathematicians choosing to ignore? I chose the cell arguement because that's the only grounded arguement they made. Still way wrong, but at least we have something to work with. Everything else is essentially just hoopla.
@stringbender3 the assumption they ignore is basing math off reality instead of imaginary equations? I don't know if thats quite a coherent thought, but I think I know what you're trying to say. Except that numbers are arbitrary representations. So in that sense, they are "imaginary" equations. But if what you say isn't nonsense. Let's hear about how we are really supposed to base math off reality? What does that even mean? Because the current system seems as straight forward logical as it gets.
Maybe he’s a better mathematician than he is an actor. Or maybe he’s an A-list actor playing a role as a great mathematician. If Keaunu can be a trained assassin why cannot Terrance Howard be a a physicist?
I have a unified formula. The idea is not that off. 0^0 =1 e^ln (1/(x-1) has impossibility of x = 1 not 0. Each impossibility can be leveraged by another’s inverse function using PHI (golden ratio). It’s like layers of swiss cheese filling every hole. It’s REAL, I just cracked PRIMES, that was much more difficult than the formula itself that self-IDs every single constant in reference to each other, Planck’s length, speed of light, and “direction” of Gravity. I can prove gravity is not a force but a reaction! People will laugh at this post BUT I have 4 new never-before-seen formulas, as a result of TOE I uncovered last week. Including cracking primes and a new high polynomial formula with smooth curve results that is deadly accurate and easy to do!
@@TitiTiti-ie2fw I am getting it verified first by a mathematics department, if it passes the academic rigor, which I am confident it will. I can reach out then.
I may be untrained as a mathematician, but this sounds like a mathematician's problem rather than a real one, to me. For sure one may not have found mathematician approved "proof" of some foundational assumptions, which means one can claim they may not be rational, but equally they may be and one simply hasn't shown it. Like all knowledge, outside of mathematics it seems, folk need to decide what convinces them, and if all past experience shows a single example of a single item resulting in one of it, it's reasonable to believe it is so, and so it's all very well for some to investigate further, but surely most will do well to continue to, "shut up and calculate", in order to advance borders instead. Edit: Having watched this video, RU-vid recommended this one next ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GZegwJVC_Pc.htmlsi=wBi4901Z5A104twn which may give further insight ?
keep clinging to your "traditional" math if that makes you feel secure. while 1 x 1 = 1 within the traditional number system we learned in school, is it possible we've been limiting ourselves. Here's the thing: mathematics is a language, and languages evolve, right? Maybe there's a whole other way of looking at multiplication, a new context where 1 x 1 could equal 2. Imagine a different kind of "one" that, when multiplied by itself, creates something new entirely. Maybe you haven't encountered alternative number systems or abstract algebra where multiplication can have different properties. Just because something seems illogical within a limited framework doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. There's a whole world of mathematics beyond basic arithmetic waiting to be explored.
Because that's what gradeschoolers are thought. What else would they know? So maybe you're the problem because you think at grade school level. Try harder
A certain sect of people is seeking to tare down and discredit every cultural advancement of modern man. But they do not offer a new reality. It is though everyone must suffer because they have.
Good video. What you are saying is that numbers are only symbols for the energy that governs and infuses everything...that we mostly don't understand...so we make assumptions.
Well, the problem is that "rational" in numbers and "rational" in the colloquial language are 2 different things being conflated here. A rational number is called that because it can be expressed as a ratio, a.k.a. a fraction. An irrational number is a number that cannot be expressed as a ratio. In colloquial language, "rational" means "reasonable" and "irrational" means "unreasonable". This video says that because some numbers cannot be expressed as a fraction, they are unreasonable. That's just word trickery.
He is right. Truth is one, but when truth creates a creation it is 2. Creator x created is 2. 2 is actually a constant of one from the x (1) and y (1) axis, meeting at the center line. 2 is infinite duality, quantum entanglement.
@@Mistery7777 let me be nice to you in explaining Mr. Howard. What Howard is saying is that 1(1×1)=2, so let's see how 2 behaves like 1. 2×2=4, but also 2+2=4. Therefore, 2 is the same as 1. Notice he has not said that 1×1 is not 1. Furthermore, 2 is 1 number, meaning every number is 1. 1 is a universal set, so 1=0 also. Therefore, 0=2, Oxygen, the only element we breathe in to live, O2. Geometrically, 1 is a line, 2 lines give you the Cartesian plane, 4 lines give you a square, the basis of all geometry. When you put the Cartesian plane cross in the square, you have one line (1) crossing(×) another line(1), giving you 2 lines of 1 center point of 4 squares, 4 dimensions, a square is 2×2= 1 square, with 4 squares inside it 2×2=4.
"A single thing is one single thing." Yawn, how original. Did you even watch the video? It talks about how even the most basic concepts in math, like 1 x 1 = 1, might be hiding something deeper. Maybe your "single thing" is just one face of a much more complex reality. Sticking to such a simplistic view seems a little...well, basic, wouldn't you say? You can't even back your own sentence 😂
@@Crader-kspi1 So, does this new math stop assuming what is a thing and instead knows how many things there really are allowing for "real" math to be performed?
When he explains it, he uses the term multiply. The "×" symbol is shorthand for counting in mathematical language. Car x 1 = 1 Car. If you interpret the "×" as multiply, then you have this issue.
I remember as a young kid been told 1x1 is 1..and i thought in all my being that it was wrong and was been lied to..if i have 1 and i x it once..one time then surely been a multiply it would be 2..
@@nickt2559 nothing to do with been a genius..it's a fact. Then I thought at that time it just must be me confused as a young child. But when I reflect now and look back it makes sense. Listen I would blow you out of the water with the truths I have experienced. In 2019 I had a spiritual wakening and my heart chakra was open..I would testify in any court of law. No bible or reglious person made me truly feel how I do about lord jesus Christ. Experienced the paranormal since a kid into adulthood..and more..next time you try be a smart ass...try have a solid point. When you stand by the truth the whole world could be against you. 👊
how does one buy 1x1 box? how can you refute how cells divide? i don't care who's right or wrong, i care that we're able to have conversations. it's actually quite the scientific method@@khornelor6
How do you buy 1 x 1 box? That would just be 1 box.. Multiplication - A mathematical operation that indicates how many times a number is added to itself. You buy 1 box you need another box to have an equation at all or it would be a=b not a*b=c. The fact of the matter is this has been debated for centuries and I doubt the answer would come from a comment section, but crazier things have happened. Real numbers have always been theoretical based on the understanding that the closest point from point a to point b is a straight line. Terrence shines a light on the fact that this assumes straight lines exist. The man may be eccentric but his ideas have merit. The standard model tells us that 90% of the matter in the universe is completely undetectable, I think this is bullshit.
Well done sir. I think that Howard isn't good at the marketing of his ideas. And had a hard time even explaing to Rogan. It would have been more simply put to say that he thinks 1x1 is not equal to 1 or equal to something other than 1. By using what is basically a statement which looks like a joke to most people they don't see he is speaking of the potential of an idea rather than fact. The irony is that they are speaking as fact as opposed to the realization that 1 is an idea that "could" be built on.
Hear me out, maybe don't say everything else is wrong, and you have the truth. It helps in reducing the dismissal. Also, don't include (even if true) ahistorical sources/reasoning unless you have good evidence of such things for people to study and review. Anyone hoping to surprise the world with new discoveries, as Terry is, will likely continue to be seen as "crazy" or lacking credibility.
Exponents use the identity function too which is wrong! How would you get to 2 cells? At least according to nature! In other words a cell would never divide and we would not be here!
@@Create-The-Imaginable If each parent cell splits into two daughter cells, then for every cell you start with you end with two cells. That’s multiplication by 2. If you start with 5 cells, then 2 * 5 cells = 10 cells. If you start with 1 cell, then 2 * 1 cell = 2 cells. Multiplication by 1 would be if the cells didn’t split at all. For every cell you start with, you end with the same cell. If you have 5 cells that don’t split, 1 * 5 cells = 5 cells. If you have one cell that doesn’t split, 1 * 1 cell = 1 cell.
@@Create-The-Imaginable Right. If the cell doesn’t split you multiply by 1. If the cell splits you multiply by 2. You don’t multiply by 1 if the cell splits. That’s not what multiplication by 1 means.
@@MrIcculus6 if you go one time and get one gummy, nothing is being multiplied. One time isn't a group of times. It's simply one time. The number of times you went wasn't increased. It's wild to hear arguments that multiply doesn't necessarily mean to increase in number because mathematicians said so. Mathematicians are who decided to redefine what multiply means and it's fine for folks to question these ideas.
While I understand what he’s talking about, but he has a weird way of explaining it… the numbers we were taught goes down in the linear order Not the three-dimensional order or the fourth dimensional and et cetera… so 1×1 =2 it’s kind of weird… it’s like saying one plus one equals to 3 without the condom… and that’s just the basis of people
1 X 1 means you have one, only one time. While 7 times 1, for example, would mean you have 1, 7 times. So, 1 X 1 can't equal 2 because it means you only have one, one times....Which is 1. The concept being explained is that multiplication is repeated addition. When you multiply a number by 1, you are not increasing its quantity but simply representing it once. Thus, 1×1 equals 1, adhering to the basic rules of arithmetic.
@@bluecafe509 The basic rules of arithmetic which lay on irrational assumptions, you mean? You just said a bunch of nothing, no proof at all. Please try again
@@UndereducatedScientistidk who told you that, but rules of arithmetic don't lay on irrational assumptions. Unless you believe it is irrational to say 1 is a natural number
Unless you are suggesting that people change the way they have been talking about it for a thousand years then the understood meaning of 1x1 will equal 1. If you want to talk about it in a whole new way that's fine. 1 multiplied will increase. Ok. But don't go saying that people are wrong because you desire to use a different meaning of the word than the meaning they intended. Mainstream mathematics say 1x1=1 and for any conversation in the mainstream of mathematics this must remain truthful. Terrence Howard is suggesting a language problem, not a math problem.
If you want to point out the flaws in mathematics there are a few. Set theory has something wrong with it, lol. I'm not a mathematician but there are things in mathematics that show it is incomplete or something. Sort of paradoxes. It's all a mystery and there will forever be new questions.
@@pianetaerrante96 Lol not in our current model, it won't. But we're not talking about the same model. You keep making this same point, but fail to grasp this simple concept.
@@HiddenKnowledgeSeeker101 and you fail to understand that by your reasoning literally anything can be true. 5 + 2 = 100, wrong?? nono, its just the current model that is incomplete. Its quite funny when ignorant people try to act smart failing miserably, both you and Howard.
@@pianetaerrante96 You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying just any model can be complete. When the hell did I say that? What I'm saying is that, people need to be more open-minded to other models that may be more complete and rational than our current one. I'm not saying that in this model, 1x1 must equal 2 or not, and the video does not state this either...
@@HiddenKnowledgeSeeker101 wait, can you even understand what you read? - I wrote "if there are still open questions in math doesnt mean 1 x 1 = 2 makes any sense" - You answered: "not in our current model, we are not talking about the same model" - I answered: "reasoning like that I can say whatever wrong thing, like 5+18 = 717162, and say that in another supposed model is correct" just to make you notice that your argument doesnt make any sense. Everything is clear?
@@HiddenKnowledgeSeeker101 @Someguytalking48 So, I'm no mathematician, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I only had the very basics of group theory. But isn't maths built on axioms which by their very nature can't be proven. And on those we built stuff like the algebraic structure with our multiplication? And that has to fulfill certain criteria? So, yes, he can say 1*1=2, if he wants to. It just isn't really practical.
Not the point here. But the pioneers in mathematics set their own rules and we've merely just accepted. Now we must question them. What they did isn't far from what you just said
You wouldn't climb Mount Everest without proper gear and preparation, right? The video is like that gear - it encourages us to question assumptions and explore new perspectives, even in seemingly simple concepts like 1 x 1 = 1. Several mathematicians and scholars are mentioned who support this idea, including Marie Louise von Franz, Herman Weyl, and Kurt Gödel.
@@vngr9238 New ideas and theories are fine. However, most scientists agree Mr. Howard has not produced the math to back up his ideas. That's somewhat problematic when proposing to challenge the whole of science as we know it.
@@lokijordanif you watched the video the people named are mathematicians with some being psychology grad and philosophers. If you check some of the articles online many mathematician expressed their support to continue to find more discoveries
Remember multiplication means to add or increase. If I give you $1 dollar, then give you the same amount again, then I have give to you twice. 2 times. Common sense will tell us that you gave me $2 dollars. 1× 1 = 2 but we were taught 1× 1 = 1
