I was confused at first, but the operative word is isomorphic. In this case it means although the numbers you are viewing are the same, the operation they are performing is not the same. Close, but no cigar. And this is why Eric Weinstein annoys me. He uses so many unnecessary words when making a point. Circle jerking himself with the mention of exponents. With that said, from what I watched he was the perfect candidate to talk to/help Terrence Howard in this conversation. Willing to submit a mind with a maze of words that leaves you scratching your head.
Judge: Why are some of your planes lacking bolts? Boeing lawyer: Well, you see judge, we calculated that when we took one bolt and screwed it on one time that in fact we would have two bolts. Turns out that's not actually the case, but unfortunately by the time we realised some planes had already been sold and shipped.
@@carefulcarpenter OMG!! one became two! -> turns out my tiny particle behaves like a wave at times. OK, so what? Have you at all considered responding with a clear message that at least in some sort of a way relates to the topic?
I finally get it Act of cheating: 1 occurrence 1x1=1 People who cheated: 1x1=2 Lol but in all seriousness i think howard is looking at things in a different lens with terminology that hasn’t been created yet or fully realized into words.
@@iradhill81 no. There’s no logic at all to what he’s saying. You would have to undo the reality of what numbers mean to even begin with to then tackle the “issue” Howard is talking about. You can’t just claim multiplying is wrong but the rest are fine.. they are all in tangent with each other. Howard like in the clip and show clearly looks stoned. Also he has a long history of being an egoistical fuck head, so that plays into it too
So let’s imagine this: There is 1 terrence Howard. He was in 1 iron Man Movie. Math Question: How many Iron Man movies was Terrence Howard in? 1 (Terrence) * 1 (Iron Man Movie) = 1 Terrence has only been in one Iron Man Movie. If we are to go by Terryology, we’d get 2 which makes no damn sense maynee **New Edit: All the Terrence bots pinging me. Here’s a lesson: Multiplication: A x B just means this. B states how many sets of element A there are. 1 x 2 is saying there are two sets of the element 1 ….The answer is 2 because we have two sets of the element 1. Addition: A + B means adding two different elements. So 1 + 1 = 2. Addition deals with two elements not one. Multiplication means how many sets of one element there are. Please stop pinging me. Terrence is confusing addition with multiplication. When he says 1 x 1 = 2. He is talking about two elements which is addition. I will no longer respond after this explanation, we learn this by age 4 in Africa.
Did you notice at 1:54:57 Eric says that Mathematics is singularly independent...Terence has been saying that nothing makes sense unless everything is connected... New minds, new creative minds...just sayin'
@@TessLawson Elaborate please? Terrence says a lot of things. Why cherry pick just that one part? I’m still waiting on him to mine the asteroid belt or whatever else he said in the past.
@@user-lo4np1bs1r hung up on the semantics ROFL how is 3x-5 multiplying? Hers the definition cut and pasted 1: the act or process of multiplying : the state of being multiplied 2 a: a mathematical operation that at its simplest is an abbreviated process of adding an integer to zero a specified number of times and that is extended to other numbers in accordance with laws that are valid for integers b: any of various mathematical operations that are analogous in some way to multiplication of the real numbers but are defined for other or larger sets of elements (such as complex numbers, vectors, matrices, or functions You are hunger up on definition one but mathematically it isn't exactly the same thing, it's definition two.
@@user-lo4np1bs1r because it is doing the mathematical expression of multiplying. which has a process. it is not the Eglish verb "to multiply" kinda like how read(reed) and read(red) are speleld the same but mean 2 different things that are similar.... 1x1 = 1^2 if we say 1x1 = 2 then the square root of 2 would have to be 1... which it isnt.... and if it was, then the square root of 1 also being 1 doesnt make sense. because thats how math proofs work and i know you didnt understand any of that because you think Terrance is credible (even though it's middle school level math) XD
@@user-lo4np1bs1r there's no nuance dude, you are just failing to understand and it's not complicated. 3+3 is a+b 3x3 is a+a+a b is not a physical thing, it's a representation of how many a's there are.
The thing is, Joe didn't seem to do a good job of challenging Terrence. I think a lot of criticism was that Joe kind of just was letting him go on and on... Even though he obviously had things, like opinions and common Sense, going through his head.
Terrence would not shut up about his patents, you can tell they played a strong role in holding up his ego. He thought of them as proof he is who he says he is
We can patent designs, but we’re cannot patent scientific knowledge and abstract ideas by law. His claim alone on patenting abstract knowledge is bullshit.
his confusion i think comes from the term "model" he thinks a scientific/mathematic "model" literally means like a physically made object. he thinks because he 3d printed something that makes it true what he is saying (because the only math he has done is using a psher with radius sqrt2 ( which literally doesnt have any real baring on his result.... since packed spheres would produce that same shape regardless of radiu... the radius literally only effects the size of it lol.
His brain sees it as 2 1s because he sees 2 1s the real question should be which is the real math to use addition or multiplication to increase numbers
exactly because it’s 3 groups of 5 I don’t understand how these mfs can not see that. it’s a pretty simple concept and Terrance’s “info” can’t help anything in our realm of existence
Big words don't make you smart, being smart makes you smart and he obviously is smart or he would have no idea that Eric is bullshitting and passive aggressively insulting him through the entire podcast
@@CattleclysmicNo, Musik has smart people working for him. Terrence just claims unproven hypothesis (that are probably wrong). Musk isn't claiming he is the engineer building the rockets at spaceX.
I don’t think isomorphic is the term for it. It’s more like homomorphic properties, which is a structure-preserving path between two algebraic structures of the same type.
He probably means that the real numbers under addition (let's say G = (R, +)) are isomorphic to the positive real numbers under multiplication (let H = (R_{>0}, \cdot)) as groups with isomorphism e^x and its inverse ln(x). Here's a proof of this using the first isomorphism theorem (for groups). Let phi(x): e^x then phi(x + y) = phi(x)phi(x) so it is a homomorphism between G and H. Since the ker(phi) is trivial, then phi is injective, and phi is surjective because for every positive real number y, we can give its natural logarithm, the inverse of the exponential, as an x such that phi(x) = y (after all, e^(ln(y)) = y) and the natural logarithm of any positive (non-zero) real number is a real number, so phi is an isomorphism (both injective and surjective). Then by the first isomorphism theorem we know that G is isomorphic to H / ker(phi) but the kernel is trivial so H/ker(phi) = H and hence G is isomorphic to H, i.e., the real numbers under addition are isomorphic to the non-zero positive real numbers under multiplication (as groups).
It wasn't Eric's fault. Terrance understandably stood with his pride and refused to fall into the humility Eric was aiming for. Eric is right, but as a grown man I can see the difficulty Terrance is having in fully conceding. It was a really powerful interaction to watch, Eric was not playing but demonstrated excellent character nonetheless. He gave Terrance his flowers while keeping it real. One might say trill.
we know.... and jsut liek has been said 10000x that isn't a thing, and it makes no sense..... if i multiply my typing by running to the store. I get what? nothing. because that makes no fuckign sense lol. even talking about money if i have 4 people with $5 each... its not $4 x $5 .......its 4 x $5 = $20..... $4x$5 = $$20 ... $$ does not exist. nor does a dollar suqared in terrances example. because multiplying means an element and a set. and when multiplying 2 elements ( in the case of area) you end up with a unit ^2 ( 2 meters x 3 meters = 6 meters ^2, you have heard of squared meters before surely. thats where it comes from, becuse you have meter x meter = meter ^2............. a dollar ^2 makes no sense as a unit and is wrong.
Terrance is offensively stupid as he tries to teach nonsense like he thinks he’s a genius when in reality a true genius makes complicated questions extremely simple for the average layman to understand
Terrence is saying "I understand the additive operation, but I don't understand the intuition for the multiplicative operation. However, I have my own intuition for how to operate in a way alternate to addition, and I think we should adopt that because it seems more reasonable." The response Eric should have given is that just because you don't understand the intuition for the multiplicative operation we use today doesn't mean that intuition is poor. Instead Eric says, "yeah but you don't need to worry about multiplication seeming strange (though it shouldn't seem strange), because it turns out the multiplicative operation is (more or less) algebraically isomorphic to the additive operation anyway, so can rely on your appreciation of addition to keep you motivated." That doesn't really address Terrence's dissatisfaction directly, it just tells him not to worry about it.
i think terence understands the idea of "x groups of y objects" perfectly fine he's just trying to cook up some newthink maths more in accordance with nature
Breaking down complexities to a basic foundational premise is the true mark of mastery on a given topic; It's quite counter to just promoting complexity and explaining when challenged on that premise via adding more theoretical complexity losing your ability to guide your audience. You have to be able to break a theory down and build it brick by brick with a person who understands what you're trying to build and the methods you're using that are understood as foundational. What Eric is doing here with Terrance's theories is a work of explanatory art and grace and a beautiful method to witness. Neil 's approach was blunt to Terrence although correct, However, Erics approach is a dance leading Terrence to hopefully realize his misteps and more rewarding to see in motion.
I know it's fashionable to hate NDT. The purpose of peer review is to point out possible errors or oversights. Not to teach someone from first principles. If you have any experience in academia you'll know that what Neil did was extremely kind and showed what a decent person he is.
@@totsh2056 Agreed, Eric has his gripes with Neil but at the end of the day both tried in their own proven genius to humble Terrance and center his proposals to where they can maybe add value. It is true what Eric and Neil say, math can convince someone of things and speak to what you want to see at a near level of madness indeed.
Thanks to your financial insight, Stacey Neal brooks, I've overcome financial adversity, managed to grow a nest egg of around 70,000 to a decent $380,000. I promise to be a vocal proponent of your work, inspiring others to benefit from your expertise!
She is my family's personal Broker and also a personal Broker to many families in the United states, she is a licensed broker and a FINRA AGENT in the United States.
Thanks for the heads up, I just looked her up online and I found her page, must say, she has captured my heart. She has definitely earned a new customer.
It's actually a pretty interesting podcast. There are some incongruecies within mathematics that have yet to be fully explained Terrance explains that his "1×1 = 2" statement is simply to highlight that known fact.
For those who have trouble understanding, this is simply proving multiplication using the property of natural logarithms and exponents. Sounds complicated but all you need to remember is: e^ln(A) = A. & e^(a+b) = e^a * e^b In this example: e^((n(a)+ln(b)) = e^ln(a) * e^ln(b) = a*b
I had my own doubts about the canopy, as I thought it would just look like a floor layer biome. The black material on the bottom worked well imo! Turned out great.
I watched the podcast and the standout thing to me was that terrence's thinking is not entirely wrong, but his "Terminology" or the term eric uses "Terms of Art" are incorrect. He just needs to learn the right language to communicate his ideas to people who already know the language. His positions dont make sense to people trained in the art because his terminology like "Supersymmetry" dont fit with the current language. Its akin to me trying to call a yellow apple a yellow. He's found a lot of symmetry in his geometric work and has tried to coin that occurrence as supersymmetry when supersymmetry in the current language means something completely different.
Nah… it’s not just the terms. He is cherrypicking stuff and making wrong assumptions. That what you get if you didn’t learn this deep stuff on school, but teach yourself sort off trough internet
@@Erik-op2hy I did not say it was just the terms, just that was what stood out to me. He has some points, but he is unable to clarify them and discuss them with the educated masters of craft due to using wrong terminology and such and then when corrected he argues, offending them. He wants someone to help him, but he acts like a man who knows it all and doesn't need help, thus no one helps him.
@@Erik-op2hy Also, You should not depend just on what you learned in school. If we just stayed in the status quo of what was taught in school, and did not step outside the bounds of the current "schools of thought" we would still think disease was spread thru "miasma" (bad airs) and docs would still be going from doing autopsies in the morning to surgery in the afternoon without washing their hands in between. It took a man willing to challenge the status quo, and be called a madman and generally shunned by the medical community for his belief in rigorous cleaning to change things and make the field of medicine safer.
@@Pariatical the root of his problem is order and language and unfortunately maths is a language. When he thinks about *multiply* he thinks in english term not in mathematic term so he thinks: "if you multiply something... it gets bigger therefor 1x1=2". Because his mind is in chaos he will jump from this first problem in language-> maths-> physics->ideology -> religion. This guy has a serious fundamental problem and calling him stupid would be too easy.
In other words: We know that ln(1)+ln(1)=ln(1x1). We also know that ln(1)=0, so ln(1x1)=0+0=0. If we bring in the exponent like Eric said, we have e^[ln(1x1)]=1x1 by the exponent/log property. Now here is the catch, Since ln(1x1)=0, then e^0=1x1. But we know that with the exception of zero, any number to the power zero is one, this means that e^0=1. Therefore 1=1x1.
@@citizeny3795 I’m giving Joe crap for thinking these two could be anywhere near equally credible. It’s embarrassing he couldn’t immediately see Terrence is a fool.
I am not saying Terrance is 100% right, but it sounds like that realm breeds mathematicians to be that way with their "kill or be killed" approach to learning or accepting new or challenging concepts. They use a lack mentality to keep each other in check and compete. Making it hard to introduce different perspectives. Sound familiar?? Reminds me of MK ultra tactics. They used this same tactic during covid as well. It works too well, not to, I suppose.
In the podcast he admits getting his arse handed to him repeatedly in his field by a colleague. Confidence isn't ego. They can look similar at times but confidence is backed up. Ego, well...
Out of all of these negative comments not one of y’all even understands what this guy just said so stop trying to play the part like you know what he’s talking about
@@pedestrian_0 according to what the gentleman said, in the interview to Rogan and Terrence Howard, only 10 people that walk the face of the earth can understand what he’s talking about.. and you are one of them..cool
There's a stronger and more general theorem (the Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem) than this that basically says that addition is the only fundamental multivariable operation. Any multivariable function can be written as a bunch of univariate functions applied to the inputs separately, then adding the results to get intermediate sums, applying univariate functions to those resulting sums, and then adding those results.
@@conmadigras2533 let what sink in.. that they showed us math and we did it? Let me ask you.. 5×5=25/(5+5+5+5+5=25) so tell me why you think 1×1=2? 1×1=1/(1=1). Simple as that.
@Kratos-eg7ez just cause they said it's the way don't mean it's correct!!!! Dummy the schools that taught you math is ran by elites you don't have no idea!!! U like da school taught us!!!! Lmao gullible lol I'm not goin argue with somebody who can't think for himself gd day!!!!
@@GabrielHodge-wu7lr if that's what you're looking for I'm sure you'd be better suited to find such things elsewhere. Have you tried Startalk w/Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I hear he's ahhmazing in that regard.
@@benorozco3156 you right wing conspiracy theorists will reject anything if it is said by a person you dont like for some unrelated reason. oh that person thinks trans people should have rights. he must be wrong about space and quantum mechanics too and anyone saying it must be wrong. just like your politics, you will follow that party line no matter what to stick to your side.
Funny thing is that everyone against Terrence is standing on an existing metric or canon. Guys, are we all obscurantists? What happened to outliers? Who set those standards?, ain’t they humans, laws are broken if mastered! Today horses are not eating only grass but our schools taught us absolutes on that regards. I don’t care how wrong we see him but I see the guy in a different realm of the irrational that is messing with the redundant systems. We are at a confluence in our evolutionary phase, whatever shakes the status quo is to me, worthy of investigation.
Terrence attempts to dazzle the general public with physics and chemistry related jargon. When he does that same dance with someone who knows what the words mean, he runs out of jargon very quickly. And not only that, half of the things he thinks don't even mean what he thinks they mean. Dewey decimal system? Cmon Terrance!
@@llortaton 😂😂…I felt that way also but on the other hand, science is deeply rooted on trial and error. That’s like an idea divergence which if a few persons gather around him can converge it, give it appropriate meaning and possibly discard the husk which is obvious.
What Eric is saying is that multiplication is a shortcut for addition… that’s all. So 3•4 is the same thing as 3+3+3+3 or 4+4+4. 1•1: There’s no additional value, 1•1 is asking what is 1 one time. That will forever and always be one.
People will walk away not understanding anything and yet still thinking Eric explained something. Personally I think he just sneaks in multiplication by another name. Personally I don think it should be hard to explain why 1x1 =1, you don’t need Eric’s wizardry.
@@Darkdiver28 If you look closer at the decline in the quality of education, and who donates to universities, well...... then you might find answers somewhat outside of the box. Success in research is applying the demands of donors to the art of statistical analysis.
@@isidrotapia8391no, he also threw in random words like "this is all due to the ether" when Rogan was speaking to Weinstein. It was kinda sad to look at tbh.
He did not agree. He flat out told him his Mathematics is the worst part of his research. He plainly stated that he may have more to offer the study of geometry than the world of Mathematics. There was nothing mathematical that Eric agreed with that wasn't founded in current Mathematics. Basically Terrences math is useless and it needs work. He did infact school Terrence, but he also validated the things where he is correct. Which were not his Mathematics. He mostly validated concepts that are not only shared by Terrence but plenty of people that are currently studying them now and they have been studied historically. Terrence thinks he has solved these things, Eric thinks he hasn't. But that he might be able to someday if he sticks with it. And he needs to work on his foundational understanding of Mathematics and the scientific process. He told him he's working from conclusion over following the research. Eric just isn't a jerk and he respects someone that is passionate about finding the truth.
@@ShayMarquel yet he agreed the number 2 is an issue he agreed its a problem with the number 0. Now I do think he van help Terrence solidify his ideas better and maybe learn the language of the mainstream. But the lynchpin is an example of how his version of math and geometry does work. But I agree he for sure said his verbiage on math is his weak spot.
@@bosstalkwithloskie9026 No brother, he did not agree that there was an issue with the number 2. He conducted the same experiment with 12 & 3 and came out with the same type of solution that Terrence did. What he did confirm is that current knowledge does not have all of Mathematics sorted out and there is plenty of room for discovery. There are plenty of things that the greatest minds still don't understand. Which is the concepts he validated but not his actual math. He did more than just disagree with his language as well. He flat out told him he is incorrect but he doesn't appreciate how the intellectual community of his peers have responded to Terrence. He told him his math is wrong, and he provided him with foundational work his mathbwould have to pass in order for it to be correct.
and as was discussed... and action times an action makes no fuckign sense..... if i multiple my typing by me running to the store... what is the answer... it makes no sense..... you guys can pretend it makes sense all you want. it doesnt make it true. and the money analogy was explained in this interview. if you repeat the dollar thing, then you clearly just ignored the answer.
in the sense that 2 x 3 is equal to 2 + 2 + 2 for 1 x 1 = 1 the equivelent statment is 1 = 1 which is why in math often times when something is multiplied by 1 we dont even write it.
Terrance is talking about math and staff from a hight diminution. All due respect to Eric but he was not willing to look outside the box as well as all of his colleagues. He told Terrance quite strait forward that what Terrance do is disrespectful to their careers and all those years of hard work. They will not allow anyone outsmart them and that is the their focus. I hope Eric is lecturing Terrance just so he keeps his colleagues pleased. I hope deep down he knows that Terrance is up for revolution in science with a degrees or not. I was expecting Eric to try to understand Terrance but nothing like that happened. Overall, absolutely mind blowing event and great minds presenting their knowledge.
@@TalZadios I don’t think that at all! I think Terrance is after something incredibly big and his theories should be examined in depth and much details with open mind
Terrence keeps saying "1 times 1 SHOULD equal 2" like i keep saying "this election SHOULD make things better" Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true
Terrance is saying: 3x5=15 (there are 3 fives) 5x3=15 (there are 5 threes) 3x0=0 (there are 3 zeros) 0x3=0 (there are no 3's)... but how could there not be 3's? If 3 is represented in the question, then literally, there is a minimum of 1 three present. Therefore, zero does not erase 1. "1×0=1"
Sets of. How many sets of. Break it down to words 1x1 is an expression of One set of one 0x3 Expresses the idea 3 sets of zero You're living 2000 years in the past if you can't conceptualize zero.
? But he doesnt even understand basic math. Literally the most basic form of math and hes just wrong. Not a good foundation to sit on if you are breaking the fabric of our reality. Hes not a genius confirmed.
And not only that but he gave terrance a warning about what he's showing and telling the world I time stamped on the original interview when Eric tells terrance that he's trying to teach on a void that no professor or math person can agree on is right nor wrong and if Howard don't stop then he will get visited by a man with an Italian last name and a suite and tie basically sounded like a threat..
This makes Weinstein More Popular Scientist. Coming after Niel DGT, who’s super skeptic about anything not academic and peer reviewed. While Weinstein is an open minded scientist.
Watched 30 mins of it and it proved to me my assumptions of Terrence being clueless and Eric being absolute king of not being able to express himself simply, just overcomplicating simplest things like explaining why 1x1 is what it is.
No, no he's not. Howard confused addition with multiplication. 1 thing 1 time is 1 thing. That's what multiplication describes. You can't multiply 1 thing by 1 thing. You add 1 thing to 1 thing.
Im sorry, that you have difficulties with understanding maths. Its fairly complicated, but you can show with the axioms of multiplication and addition (inverse and neutral elements commutativitity, distributivity and associativity) and the successor function, that for the natural numbers multiplication is repeated addition. Everything else follows. If you had difficulties understanding what I just said, it is okay, because these concepts are hard to understand, but believe my many really smart people took much time and effort to show, that they are consistent.
@@billystanton1522 Howard is not confused. He is wrong. This podcast is a rebuttal to his outlandish claims. There was no mistake. Howard believes everything he thinks and is not qualified for that leap
If anyone here had watched the podcast properly, Eric himself calls Terrence a genius with a metaphoric mind. Without question, Terrence Howard is profoundly smarter than you. His level of knowledge is outstanding, and Eric makes this clear. What Eric has done is show Terrence how to NOT offend those who are masters of these subjects. Terrence is absolutely not saying 1x1=2, he's using it as a metaphor. This is stated continually, and clipped terribly. The internet is almost the biggest pile of injustice to any mind seeking to expand. This was the most enlightening format for open discussion onto some of the most interesting subjects ever covered on the JRE. Everyone involved with this deserves a huge round of applause, and not a single person in this comments section has come close to achieving anything as impressive as the what this pair did during this 4 hour masterclass.
If he’s so smart how did he not see that telling normal people that 1x1=2 was a mistake and that normal people are going to say that’s stupid because the second number of the equation represents the number of times the first number appears so if you have one only one time that equals one and an extra one is not going to magically appear to equal two 1x1=1 would be better represented as 1=1 because one only appears once but to explain that one only appears once you would say one one time which appears as 1x1 How many left hands do you have Only one right just because I made hands plural in my statement doesn’t mean you magically sprouted an extra left hand If he would have never said 1x1=2 people would take him more seriously instead people say that’s stupid and this other math problem is probably wrong if you based it off 1x1=2 witch I’m sure he did not but the fact still remains if you open up with something people know is wrong they will dismiss everything that comes after that statement
@Vanguard_Spartan_00762 Sure. I see your point. You're right, terrence simply should have dumbed it down for the easy people. It doesn't matter that he started it's a metaphor around 10 times, you heard it that way, therefore he meant it that way. If he's so dumb, why is Eric weinstein praising his incredible attempts at something new? Eric isn't telling Terrence he's right, he's telling him he's on the verge of something profound and cool. I don't know where this needs to go from here, other than I assume you could do with a proper re-up on the session. 4 hours was heavy for anyone, admittedly I had to break it into two halves. But what I will say is that this was incredible to witness.
Laws of logarithms 1. logarithmic a + logarithmic b = logarithmic (a times b) 2. e power natural logarithmic x equal’s x So e power ( log a + log b) = e power (log ab) = ab = a times b
No he didn't. He doesn't like that 2 "loops", which mathematics calls "fixed points" and he doesn't like that mathematics describes things not found in nature, which Eric said was ridiculous. 0 doesn't exist in nature. Good luck getting rid of it.
Yeah like a flat earther arguing the earth is flat. They fight their case well also, only they are delusional and unhinged. We need to be disingenuous to these regarded people and hopefully bring back asylums.
They set Terrence up...Eric swore he wasn't trying to do him dirty but he had to know people would be clipping these shorts which make him look fully regarded. Right or wrong, it's minds like his that achieve revolutionizing discovery.
This post is foul and people who think that terrance howard is bugging go and watch the 4 hr podcast like I did. He was using 1x1 as a reference. A formal education doesn’t mean you are intelligent.
No, he was wrong. He claims he used it as a metaphor to point out what's wrong with current Mathematics but what he claims is incorrect. That's his problem. If someone says they found a problem. It has to actually be a problem. They can't be corrected only to then say, "No I meant that as a metaphorical problem, so I can bring attention to the REAL overall problem". His math just has to be correct. And he shouldn't claim to have created something to replace current math, when he needs an expert in current math simply to explain HIS own concepts. I genuinely loved and was inspired by this conversation. I love that he's doing independent study. But, he can't go unchecked. He needs help solving these issues because he has too many holes in what he presents forward.
Sure but he also flipped flopped on that idea multiple times saying at one point that its metaphorical/reference then meaning it literal the next. Terence is indeed bugging.
For thise who dont know, the natural logarithm is the inverse function to the exponent function. Logarithms basically undo exponents. The natural log is a logarithm with base e. E is euler's number and is used all over math for having many important properties when it comes to exponents and calculus and finance. There is a law in math, that when you take a log of an exponent of the same base, since the two are inverse functionss they will cancel each other out and give what is in the brackets. Its like adding 5 to a number then subtracting 5, you are just going to get the number you started with. Now, there is another law of exponents, that when you have any numbers that are added in the exponent like e^(a+b), that is the same as e^a TIMES e^b. Think about it, if you have 2^2+1 that should equal 2^3 which is 8. Now if i do 2^2 × 2^1 i get 4×2 which gives me 8. Therefore, if we take e^ln(a)+ln(b), that can be rewritten as e^ln(a) × e^ln(b), now that we have an exponent raised to a logarithm with the same base, we can cancel them out, leaving us with a×b.
An isomorphism doesn’t really mean exactly the same thing. It just means it has the same structure. And what he’s describing is a ring homomorphism to be precise. The operation is preserved in and out of the function.
@JJ3nkins89 After all of these years that's the best clap back you have? You WS are short bus with the wheelchair elevator on the back type of slow.🤣🤣🤣🤣
The fact that there's so much derision about what he's saying is actually proving his point. The premise/philosophy behind what he's saying is that mathematics has effectively been divorced from its initial association, namely to the physical world, and has been rendered essentially theoretical. If you think in terms of objects rather than numbers, if you take 2 of anything, let's say 2 jars of milk, then multiply it by 2 jars of milk, you're going to have 2 sets of 2 jars of milk to render the equation a legitimate multiplication of things, therefore there are 4 jars of milk. The same premise is extended to 1 jar of milk being multiplied by 1 jar of milk, as 2 jars of milk would have to be presented in order for the equation to be proper in the physical sense. Not that hard to understand, and certainly not worthy of derision. It actually makes sense in the context within which it is couched. And, obviously, Eric's erudite explanation of the numerical, formulaic definition is provably true as well. Literally 2 ways of looking at the same thing.
You still don’t get to make up your own definition of multiplication. If he thinks he found flaw in how multiplication works in the “real world”, then make up a new term for whatever new math he’s doing and call it Terryplication or something.
@@TheAZNinvasion This is the best illustraton to show that maths don't have to reflect reality. jar of milk time a jar of milk gives a jar of milk squared which is true by your equation but not in reality.
He’s taking the natural logarithm of any 2 numbers so If a is 4 and b is 8 he takes the natural log of them then he adds them together then he takes the exponent of the added logs which basically means he takes the natural log of e and times it by the previous answer which is roughly the same as if you just went 8 X 4 you get the same answer.
Eric WHINEstein made the whole situation worse. It was 4 hours of him kvetching and going on long rants about nothing. He basically threatened to fight Terrence too, by using an analogy about fighting Rogan. I hope Rogan never brings him or his brother on JRE again. They’re both insufferable, they’re honestly worse than Terrence and you can tell they just want some attention. Terrence at least has some charisma and is amusing. Sure his ideas are completely illogical but he has a great personality. I’d say Eric has a bigger ego than Terrence, I’d also say he’s more delusional too.
@@Kenzo-ye3oj Do you want me to explain because you genuinely want to understand the math trick he used or do you want to just say something like "math isn't real" or "you learned that in school so it's wrong"? Because if it's the latter, you're not willing to understand basic mathematics and it's not worth the discussion.
You can also do this, if you have the the natural log of A, or (ln A+ln B)=ln C when you have A and B and a common log like the natural log and you add the natural log of the numbers together you can rewrite it as ln(A×B)=ln C. Cancel out the natural log in both sides and get A×B=C making adding and multiplying isomorphic.
i get that ln(A)+ln(B) = ln(A×B) but how does this mean they're isomorphic. i dont get the intuition when it comes to thinking of it from the perspective of log. i do understand it as repeated addition, of A B times or of B A times.
Both me and Terrence Howard understood like 15% of what that man said
🤦♂️ 🤦♂️🤦♂️
I was confused at first, but the operative word is isomorphic. In this case it means although the numbers you are viewing are the same, the operation they are performing is not the same. Close, but no cigar.
And this is why Eric Weinstein annoys me. He uses so many unnecessary words when making a point. Circle jerking himself with the mention of exponents.
With that said, from what I watched he was the perfect candidate to talk to/help Terrence Howard in this conversation. Willing to submit a mind with a maze of words that leaves you scratching your head.
@d33du6 chea only to discredit facts!!! Terrance knows wt he's talkin bout he killed they god gravity and now they mad!!!!
@@conmadigras2533what lol you’ve been brain washed by terrance and this is exactly why they did this podcast to hopefully unbrain wash people.
@@conmadigras2533 Prove it. Thats the issue, He makes statements he cant proof.
I think Boeing has been using Terrence math.
@JJ3nkins89
Dumb WS using math from intelligent black people? 🤔 That doesn't add up, the next thing you're going to tell me is 1+1=1.🤣🤣🤣
@@JJ3nkins89 Terrence is a genius. Boeing is run by a hierarchy.
Judge: Why are some of your planes lacking bolts?
Boeing lawyer: Well, you see judge, we calculated that when we took one bolt and screwed it on one time that in fact we would have two bolts. Turns out that's not actually the case, but unfortunately by the time we realised some planes had already been sold and shipped.
@@MrOod67 When I shot one particle through the double slit--- OMG!! one became two!
I need to see a psychiatrist
@@carefulcarpenter
OMG!! one became two! -> turns out my tiny particle behaves like a wave at times. OK, so what?
Have you at all considered responding with a clear message that at least in some sort of a way relates to the topic?
If you needed brain surgery would you go to Dr. Dre? - Eric Weinstein
Terrance's cult members would.
@@JJ3nkins89 u would
Dr is an academic title - so I wudnt go for medical advice to anyone with a Dr prefix unless I know they are a surgeon.
😂😂😂
I need brain surgery after hearing Eric speak. Simplify to reach the masses. I don't Like Neil de Grass but Eric should learn that from him.
If my wife cheats on me one time and then cheats on me one time again, that's a two timing scandalous tramp.😞
4 times??? She's for the alley's my man
Yep. And that's 1, 2 times. 1x2
I finally get it
Act of cheating: 1 occurrence 1x1=1
People who cheated: 1x1=2
Lol but in all seriousness i think howard is looking at things in a different lens with terminology that hasn’t been created yet or fully realized into words.
@@iradhill81 no. There’s no logic at all to what he’s saying. You would have to undo the reality of what numbers mean to even begin with to then tackle the “issue” Howard is talking about. You can’t just claim multiplying is wrong but the rest are fine.. they are all in tangent with each other. Howard like in the clip and show clearly looks stoned. Also he has a long history of being an egoistical fuck head, so that plays into it too
🤣🤣🤣
“Assume Terrance doesn’t have a problem with addition”. Welp I guess that’s that 😂
I'm 100% sure that whoever did this short has no Idea what Eric is talking about
? I think its pretty simple. Only thing if you are confused is, you dont know what an exponent mean.
100% sure you are clueless, along with Terrance and his new cult.
@@Dougie-ex1ov 2 + 2 = 5, and two males can have a baby.
@@moisesmartinez3134 pretty much today. No one wants to acknowledge reality
I don't know what natural log is either. I would google it but CZcams shorts has me in a vice grip.
So let’s imagine this:
There is 1 terrence Howard.
He was in 1 iron Man Movie.
Math Question: How many Iron Man movies was Terrence Howard in?
1 (Terrence) * 1 (Iron Man Movie) = 1
Terrence has only been in one Iron Man Movie. If we are to go by Terryology, we’d get 2 which makes no damn sense maynee
**New Edit: All the Terrence bots pinging me. Here’s a lesson:
Multiplication: A x B just means this. B states how many sets of element A there are.
1 x 2 is saying there are two sets of the element 1 ….The answer is 2 because we have two sets of the element 1.
Addition: A + B means adding two different elements. So 1 + 1 = 2.
Addition deals with two elements not one.
Multiplication means how many sets of one element there are.
Please stop pinging me. Terrence is confusing addition with multiplication. When he says 1 x 1 = 2. He is talking about two elements which is addition. I will no longer respond after this explanation, we learn this by age 4 in Africa.
Hahahahahaahaha , that was well said and funny 🤭
Isnt your comment division?
Did you notice at 1:54:57 Eric says that Mathematics is singularly independent...Terence has been saying that nothing makes sense unless everything is connected...
New minds, new creative minds...just sayin'
@@TessLawson Elaborate please? Terrence says a lot of things. Why cherry pick just that one part? I’m still waiting on him to mine the asteroid belt or whatever else he said in the past.
I think what he means is 1 x 1 is the same. So u should be doing 1 terrence times 1 terrence is what?
Terrence has to be top tier trolling at this point.😅😅
He is an “actor”. Lol
… he was with 1x1=2 , he admitted it in the podcast . He was using it as a metaphor
@@emekabronson8697 lol the old, "oh yeah, I was simply pretending to be retarded. Got ya!" 😂
@emekabronson8697 That's what i was referring to. Did he mention what the metaphor was for?
@@SlickArmor He would, but he's still trying to find out what a metaphor is.
Eric : What’s 8 x 1 Terrence?
Terrence : 8 x 1 equals nine
Lmao
I wanna be TH's accountant 😂
@@davidgibbs2109😂
@@bobbylow175 When I shot one particle through the double slit--- OMG!! one became two!
I need to see a psychiatrist!
Lemme say this if you take a quantity of mad and you multiply by the same quantity it gives you what??...
1x1 is saying there is a 1 once.
1x2 is saying there is a 1 twice aka 2 times. How does anybody take him seriously if he fails at gradeschool math
How is 1x1 multiplying?
@@user-lo4np1bs1r hung up on the semantics ROFL how is 3x-5 multiplying?
Hers the definition cut and pasted
1: the act or process of multiplying : the state of being multiplied
2 a: a mathematical operation that at its simplest is an abbreviated process of adding an integer to zero a specified number of times and that is extended to other numbers in accordance with laws that are valid for integers
b: any of various mathematical operations that are analogous in some way to multiplication of the real numbers but are defined for other or larger sets of elements (such as complex numbers, vectors, matrices, or functions
You are hunger up on definition one but mathematically it isn't exactly the same thing, it's definition two.
@@user-lo4np1bs1r because it is doing the mathematical expression of multiplying. which has a process. it is not the Eglish verb "to multiply" kinda like how read(reed) and read(red) are speleld the same but mean 2 different things that are similar....
1x1 = 1^2
if we say 1x1 = 2 then the square root of 2 would have to be 1... which it isnt.... and if it was, then the square root of 1 also being 1 doesnt make sense. because thats how math proofs work and i know you didnt understand any of that because you think Terrance is credible (even though it's middle school level math) XD
@@jasonz1771 okay then understand the nuance in that wording and how this could lead to be
@@user-lo4np1bs1r there's no nuance dude, you are just failing to understand and it's not complicated.
3+3 is a+b
3x3 is a+a+a
b is not a physical thing, it's a representation of how many a's there are.
Weinstein is a brilliant mathematician
He is a parrot talking in circles.
@@captain_orange- 🤔….
uh, no….that’s N’dGT.
he literally said terrance was right buddie 😂😂😂
Mhm - Terrance Howard 2024
He brought this man on to disprove him
The thing is, Joe didn't seem to do a good job of challenging Terrence. I think a lot of criticism was that Joe kind of just was letting him go on and on... Even though he obviously had things, like opinions and common Sense, going through his head.
@@paulciampo2104called freedom of speech
@@user-lo4np1bs1r ad so is correcting someone for saying dumb shit. that isn't the own you think it is in any way whatso ever lol.
@@Fleato I'm just not that invested in what a random actor says like it is law, if he is wrong so be it but demonstrate why
@@user-lo4np1bs1r remaining silent is also free speech... What's your point?
Howard sounded like a first grader next to Eric 😂😂
He didn't look bad. He was standing his ground
. Erick: 1 x 1 = what?? Howard (small voice) 1 x 1 = 2?🥹
It's like how the fuck do you explain to a mentally challenged child that thinks their a genius that they are just mentally challenged?
@@georgdiaz7450you are caught up in the speech and not the words
@@user-lo4np1bs1r I was caught by his body language as well. He wasn't as confident in front of Erick.
Losing iron man messed this man up
He built an irl Arc reactor and solved the energy crisis bud, he's a genius
@@P4PmmaFan😂
@@P4PmmaFanwhere is it?
@@user-iv4rn6rn9q On his space station
All emotions are feminine and/DNA 🧬 y lack of logic @@jg1772
He called him stupid professionally.
Facts. He used the condescending work email jargon
Terrence would not shut up about his patents, you can tell they played a strong role in holding up his ego. He thought of them as proof he is who he says he is
He doesn't even hold any patents
Yeah I looked up too. That's a lie too.
I would too
We can patent designs, but we’re cannot patent scientific knowledge and abstract ideas by law. His claim alone on patenting abstract knowledge is bullshit.
his confusion i think comes from the term "model" he thinks a scientific/mathematic "model" literally means like a physically made object. he thinks because he 3d printed something that makes it true what he is saying (because the only math he has done is using a psher with radius sqrt2 ( which literally doesnt have any real baring on his result.... since packed spheres would produce that same shape regardless of radiu... the radius literally only effects the size of it lol.
Terrence is crazy 😂
Legalise black math!
What the hell lmao😂😂
😂😂😂😂
thats how you get child support payment problems
😂😂😂
This and crime statistics is why math is racist
3x5=5+5+5
Theres 3 5’s.
1x1=1
There’s one one. It’s not difficult folks.
Edit: whoops it’s 5 3s. Idea is the same though
His brain sees it as 2 1s because he sees 2 1s the real question should be which is the real math to use addition or multiplication to increase numbers
Fucking right hahah
😂
exactly because it’s 3 groups of 5 I don’t understand how these mfs can not see that. it’s a pretty simple concept and Terrance’s “info” can’t help anything in our realm of existence
No there is 5 3's
The whole podcast looked like a sequence out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
Doctor Rogan and Doctor Weinstein analyzing patient Terry.
Yall didn't watch the podcast. SMH
Lol exactly
I did, Terrence now appears more nuts.
I liked Eric's blackjack analogy, Terrence keeps saying hit me when he's sitting on 19 !
@@newman653 hell i caught him saying hit me on 21 a few times
It’s a metaphor for Terrence. But basically Terrence is out here challenging the status quo of mathematics and the scientific community is responding.
Terrence doesn't have a problem with addition. He has a problem with semantics.
Terrence is an absolute narcissist. His claims are boundless and absolutely unsubstantiated.
My boy just gave u enuff rope...
And the world is full of crack pots. DEI means we must entertain certain crackpots.
Big words don't make you smart, being smart makes you smart and he obviously is smart or he would have no idea that Eric is bullshitting and passive aggressively insulting him through the entire podcast
Which ones???
@@TheXxAFROxXno bro, terrance howard is just plain wrong
Terrence Howard is way too confident for how wrong he is
It can get you rich, Musk is doing same thing
@@Cattleclysmic Musk is actually smart in some areas
@Cattleclysmic Musk can run circles around you in intelligence so idk why u talking shit.
@@Cattleclysmic Musk is a trust-fund baby, he was always rich.
@@CattleclysmicNo, Musik has smart people working for him. Terrence just claims unproven hypothesis (that are probably wrong). Musk isn't claiming he is the engineer building the rockets at spaceX.
I don’t think isomorphic is the term for it. It’s more like homomorphic properties, which is a structure-preserving path between two algebraic structures of the same type.
He probably means that the real numbers under addition (let's say G = (R, +)) are isomorphic to the positive real numbers under multiplication (let H = (R_{>0}, \cdot)) as groups with isomorphism e^x and its inverse ln(x). Here's a proof of this using the first isomorphism theorem (for groups). Let phi(x): e^x then phi(x + y) = phi(x)phi(x) so it is a homomorphism between G and H. Since the ker(phi) is trivial, then phi is injective, and phi is surjective because for every positive real number y, we can give its natural logarithm, the inverse of the exponential, as an x such that phi(x) = y (after all, e^(ln(y)) = y) and the natural logarithm of any positive (non-zero) real number is a real number, so phi is an isomorphism (both injective and surjective). Then by the first isomorphism theorem we know that G is isomorphic to H / ker(phi) but the kernel is trivial so H/ker(phi) = H and hence G is isomorphic to H, i.e., the real numbers under addition are isomorphic to the non-zero positive real numbers under multiplication (as groups).
An isomorphism is simply a bijective homomorphism…
Terrence on that common core math
Weinstein confused Howard more than he helped....
It wasn't Eric's fault. Terrance understandably stood with his pride and refused to fall into the humility Eric was aiming for. Eric is right, but as a grown man I can see the difficulty Terrance is having in fully conceding. It was a really powerful interaction to watch, Eric was not playing but demonstrated excellent character nonetheless. He gave Terrance his flowers while keeping it real. One might say trill.
But Terrence was following completely
And Howard helped Eric more than he confused him
Terrence was lost as soon as he didn't agree with 1 x 1 = 2
@@jimberry5318 no that’s where Eric was lost
I think Terrence is just trolling all of us. He's actually a brilliant mathematician but is also such a brilliant actor that he can play this dumb.
no
Terrance is calculating actions not numbers
His calculation of actions is actually 1x2, the reaction being the second thing. He's describing 1x2 but wrongly describing it as 1x1.
@@movingforward. what he is doing has infinitely less applications to the world than 1 X 1 = 1. He should try calculating numbers for a change
we know.... and jsut liek has been said 10000x that isn't a thing, and it makes no sense.....
if i multiply my typing by running to the store. I get what? nothing. because that makes no fuckign sense lol.
even talking about money if i have 4 people with $5 each... its not $4 x $5 .......its 4 x $5 = $20..... $4x$5 = $$20 ... $$ does not exist. nor does a dollar suqared in terrances example. because multiplying means an element and a set. and when multiplying 2 elements ( in the case of area) you end up with a unit ^2 ( 2 meters x 3 meters = 6 meters ^2, you have heard of squared meters before surely. thats where it comes from, becuse you have meter x meter = meter ^2............. a dollar ^2 makes no sense as a unit and is wrong.
Terrance is offensively stupid as he tries to teach nonsense like he thinks he’s a genius when in reality a true genius makes complicated questions extremely simple for the average layman to understand
Terrence is saying "I understand the additive operation, but I don't understand the intuition for the multiplicative operation. However, I have my own intuition for how to operate in a way alternate to addition, and I think we should adopt that because it seems more reasonable." The response Eric should have given is that just because you don't understand the intuition for the multiplicative operation we use today doesn't mean that intuition is poor. Instead Eric says, "yeah but you don't need to worry about multiplication seeming strange (though it shouldn't seem strange), because it turns out the multiplicative operation is (more or less) algebraically isomorphic to the additive operation anyway, so can rely on your appreciation of addition to keep you motivated." That doesn't really address Terrence's dissatisfaction directly, it just tells him not to worry about it.
i think terence understands the idea of "x groups of y objects" perfectly fine
he's just trying to cook up some newthink maths more in accordance with nature
Breaking down complexities to a basic foundational premise is the true mark of mastery on a given topic; It's quite counter to just promoting complexity and explaining when challenged on that premise via adding more theoretical complexity losing your ability to guide your audience. You have to be able to break a theory down and build it brick by brick with a person who understands what you're trying to build and the methods you're using that are understood as foundational. What Eric is doing here with Terrance's theories is a work of explanatory art and grace and a beautiful method to witness. Neil 's approach was blunt to Terrence although correct, However, Erics approach is a dance leading Terrence to hopefully realize his misteps and more rewarding to see in motion.
I know it's fashionable to hate NDT. The purpose of peer review is to point out possible errors or oversights. Not to teach someone from first principles. If you have any experience in academia you'll know that what Neil did was extremely kind and showed what a decent person he is.
@@totsh2056 Agreed, Eric has his gripes with Neil but at the end of the day both tried in their own proven genius to humble Terrance and center his proposals to where they can maybe add value. It is true what Eric and Neil say, math can convince someone of things and speak to what you want to see at a near level of madness indeed.
Thanks to your financial insight, Stacey
Neal brooks, I've overcome financial adversity, managed to grow a nest egg of around 70,000 to a decent $380,000. I promise to be a vocal proponent of your work, inspiring others to benefit from your expertise!
She is my family's personal Broker and also a personal Broker to many families in the United states, she is a licensed broker and a FINRA AGENT in the United States.
Thanks for the heads up, I just looked her up online and I found her page, must say, she has captured my heart. She has definitely earned a new customer.
I’m new to this. Please Is there any way to reach
h e r ¿
*She’s mostly on Telegrams*
*Brookstacy👈🏻*
*That’s her use name*
Our world is almost at an end if a lot of people cannot multiply
Yes, you have a lot of people out there arguing about whether or not 1x1 equals 2 or 1. Scary times
literally ehading toward idiocracy where people are going to start watering crops with gatorade or what ever....
It is the difference between being indoctrinated and being able to critically think.
@@Fleato brought to you by Carl's Jr
It's actually a pretty interesting podcast.
There are some incongruecies within mathematics that have yet to be fully explained
Terrance explains that his "1×1 = 2" statement is simply to highlight that known fact.
For those who have trouble understanding, this is simply proving multiplication using the property of natural logarithms and exponents. Sounds complicated but all you need to remember is:
e^ln(A) = A.
&
e^(a+b) = e^a * e^b
In this example:
e^((n(a)+ln(b)) = e^ln(a) * e^ln(b) = a*b
I had my own doubts about the canopy, as I thought it would just look like a floor layer biome. The black material on the bottom worked well imo! Turned out great.
I watched the podcast and the standout thing to me was that terrence's thinking is not entirely wrong, but his "Terminology" or the term eric uses "Terms of Art" are incorrect. He just needs to learn the right language to communicate his ideas to people who already know the language. His positions dont make sense to people trained in the art because his terminology like "Supersymmetry" dont fit with the current language. Its akin to me trying to call a yellow apple a yellow. He's found a lot of symmetry in his geometric work and has tried to coin that occurrence as supersymmetry when supersymmetry in the current language means something completely different.
Nah… it’s not just the terms. He is cherrypicking stuff and making wrong assumptions.
That what you get if you didn’t learn this deep stuff on school, but teach yourself sort off trough internet
@@Erik-op2hyseeing how everything is a theory saying he is wrong is wrong.
@@Erik-op2hy I did not say it was just the terms, just that was what stood out to me. He has some points, but he is unable to clarify them and discuss them with the educated masters of craft due to using wrong terminology and such and then when corrected he argues, offending them. He wants someone to help him, but he acts like a man who knows it all and doesn't need help, thus no one helps him.
@@Erik-op2hy Also, You should not depend just on what you learned in school. If we just stayed in the status quo of what was taught in school, and did not step outside the bounds of the current "schools of thought" we would still think disease was spread thru "miasma" (bad airs) and docs would still be going from doing autopsies in the morning to surgery in the afternoon without washing their hands in between. It took a man willing to challenge the status quo, and be called a madman and generally shunned by the medical community for his belief in rigorous cleaning to change things and make the field of medicine safer.
@@Pariatical the root of his problem is order and language and unfortunately maths is a language. When he thinks about *multiply* he thinks in english term not in mathematic term so he thinks: "if you multiply something... it gets bigger therefor 1x1=2".
Because his mind is in chaos he will jump from this first problem in language-> maths-> physics->ideology -> religion. This guy has a serious fundamental problem and calling him stupid would be too easy.
In other words: We know that ln(1)+ln(1)=ln(1x1). We also know that ln(1)=0, so ln(1x1)=0+0=0. If we bring in the exponent like Eric said, we have e^[ln(1x1)]=1x1 by the exponent/log property. Now here is the catch, Since ln(1x1)=0, then e^0=1x1. But we know that with the exception of zero, any number to the power zero is one, this means that e^0=1. Therefore 1=1x1.
What? 😂
When a genius teaches someone who thinks they’re a genius
Yeeeeeesssss
This guy is no genius his just saying what his been thought
@@sizwengcobo-5583 his been thought? I’m done here.
Joe: idk man Terrence might be onto something who knows what’s real 🤪
The other guy, the other guy knows. He literally explained it on the video you are commenting on.
@@citizeny3795 I’m giving Joe crap for thinking these two could be anywhere near equally credible. It’s embarrassing he couldn’t immediately see Terrence is a fool.
Western European brains, say so much about the same thing, a waste of symbols.
Hustle flow guy fuckin up my times tables
It’s so fucking annoying how smart Eric is
Actually makes me look like a simpleton compared to him, shame hes using he great mind debating shit mcgee
Shame his ego is as large as his capacity for math.
I am not saying Terrance is 100% right, but it sounds like that realm breeds mathematicians to be that way with their "kill or be killed" approach to learning or accepting new or challenging concepts. They use a lack mentality to keep each other in check and compete. Making it hard to introduce different perspectives. Sound familiar?? Reminds me of MK ultra tactics. They used this same tactic during covid as well. It works too well, not to, I suppose.
In the podcast he admits getting his arse handed to him repeatedly in his field by a colleague. Confidence isn't ego. They can look similar at times but confidence is backed up. Ego, well...
If he agrees with Terrence it automatically destroys his community and his licences which he tries to protect at all cost. Kept jumping topics.😂
Out of all of these negative comments not one of y’all even understands what this guy just said so stop trying to play the part like you know what he’s talking about
1x1=1
@@MoriaGecko1I I understand when he said Terence is talking nonsense
and did you lol?
I actually understood it very simply considering I graduated from the Oxford with a degree in math very top of my class 1%
@@pedestrian_0 according to what the gentleman said, in the interview to Rogan and Terrence Howard, only 10 people that walk the face of the earth can understand what he’s talking about.. and you are one of them..cool
I get what Terrance is saying!
There's a stronger and more general theorem (the Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem) than this that basically says that addition is the only fundamental multivariable operation. Any multivariable function can be written as a bunch of univariate functions applied to the inputs separately, then adding the results to get intermediate sums, applying univariate functions to those resulting sums, and then adding those results.
Not sure where Terrence went to school. Glad I didn't.
Maybe hd is hard of hearing oh for dummies answer is. ONE
Don't forget the school you went to taught you how to do math!!!! Let dat sink in!!!!
give terrence $1 one time.
How many dollar does he have?
give terrence $60 zero times. Or give Terry $0 sixty times.
how many dollars does he have?
@@conmadigras2533 let what sink in.. that they showed us math and we did it? Let me ask you.. 5×5=25/(5+5+5+5+5=25) so tell me why you think 1×1=2? 1×1=1/(1=1). Simple as that.
@Kratos-eg7ez just cause they said it's the way don't mean it's correct!!!! Dummy the schools that taught you math is ran by elites you don't have no idea!!! U like da school taught us!!!! Lmao gullible lol I'm not goin argue with somebody who can't think for himself gd day!!!!
Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson called Howard basically an idiot after scrutinizing a 36 page report he sent him.
Neil Degrasse Tyson don't even know what bathroom to use. Everyone is an idiot in something quizzling.
Give it a rest...one has nothing to do with the other. Ffs! @@benorozco3156
@@benorozco3156 you're not very distracting therefore you aren't very good at brainwashing good bye
@@GabrielHodge-wu7lr if that's what you're looking for I'm sure you'd be better suited to find such things elsewhere. Have you tried Startalk w/Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I hear he's ahhmazing in that regard.
@@benorozco3156 you right wing conspiracy theorists will reject anything if it is said by a person you dont like for some unrelated reason. oh that person thinks trans people should have rights. he must be wrong about space and quantum mechanics too and anyone saying it must be wrong.
just like your politics, you will follow that party line no matter what to stick to your side.
That should have ended with: " Now Terrance, go take your little toy and play in the other room until the adults are done talking"
The scary part about all this is how confident Terrence howard is.. 😂😂
Understanding mathematics on a first principles basis is fundamental to understanding why 1+1=2 & 1×1=1...
you people are the new flat earthers
Funny thing is that everyone against Terrence is standing on an existing metric or canon.
Guys, are we all obscurantists?
What happened to outliers?
Who set those standards?, ain’t they humans, laws are broken if mastered!
Today horses are not eating only grass but our schools taught us absolutes on that regards.
I don’t care how wrong we see him but I see the guy in a different realm of the irrational that is messing with the redundant systems.
We are at a confluence in our evolutionary phase, whatever shakes the status quo is to me, worthy of investigation.
Terrence attempts to dazzle the general public with physics and chemistry related jargon. When he does that same dance with someone who knows what the words mean, he runs out of jargon very quickly. And not only that, half of the things he thinks don't even mean what he thinks they mean. Dewey decimal system? Cmon Terrance!
@@llortaton 😂😂…I felt that way also but on the other hand, science is deeply rooted on trial and error.
That’s like an idea divergence which if a few persons gather around him can converge it, give it appropriate meaning and possibly discard the husk which is obvious.
1x1=1
@@MoriaGecko1 I will disagree so we agree, for now😂…I’m trying to understand Terence conjectures please🤭
"ain't they humans" haha ebonics yo
What Eric is saying is that multiplication is a shortcut for addition… that’s all. So 3•4 is the same thing as 3+3+3+3 or 4+4+4.
1•1:
There’s no additional value, 1•1 is asking what is 1 one time. That will forever and always be one.
The “logth”? Don’t believe I’ve heard that one before 😂
he said logs. i can hear where you might hear the th though.
People will walk away not understanding anything and yet still thinking Eric explained something. Personally I think he just sneaks in multiplication by another name. Personally I don think it should be hard to explain why 1x1 =1, you don’t need Eric’s wizardry.
It's not but being a mathematician Eric basically gave him a mathematical proof because it's irrefutable even by Howard's insane thinking.
@@michaelbuick6995 Something greater was presented--- but I see it went over the heads of the comment section.
A UFO per chance?
Because simple explanations are not satisfying Terrance.
@@Darkdiver28 If you look closer at the decline in the quality of education, and who donates to universities, well...... then you might find answers somewhat outside of the box.
Success in research is applying the demands of donors to the art of statistical analysis.
@@robertjan002 "Man has developed a majestic forest of thought; and the children climb the trees and play, La di da, LA di day."
🌲 🌲 🌲
Props to Terrence for accepting to be corrected
The problem is he didn't accept any of the corrections.
@@amjan didn’t he, the second time around?
@@isidrotapia8391no, he also threw in random words like "this is all due to the ether" when Rogan was speaking to Weinstein. It was kinda sad to look at tbh.
The full JRE show was amazing. Such a cool conversation.
Terrence knows where he is because Terrence knows where he isn't.
If you had seen the whole video you'll know that this is absolutely not what happen
at all the math guy actually had to agree with terrence even tho he seemed like he disagreed
He did not agree. He flat out told him his Mathematics is the worst part of his research. He plainly stated that he may have more to offer the study of geometry than the world of Mathematics. There was nothing mathematical that Eric agreed with that wasn't founded in current Mathematics. Basically Terrences math is useless and it needs work. He did infact school Terrence, but he also validated the things where he is correct. Which were not his Mathematics. He mostly validated concepts that are not only shared by Terrence but plenty of people that are currently studying them now and they have been studied historically. Terrence thinks he has solved these things, Eric thinks he hasn't. But that he might be able to someday if he sticks with it. And he needs to work on his foundational understanding of Mathematics and the scientific process. He told him he's working from conclusion over following the research. Eric just isn't a jerk and he respects someone that is passionate about finding the truth.
You’re wrong buddy. Terrance was corrected on many occasions. Don’t try to argue with a PhD mathematician. You seem ignorant.
@@ShayMarquel yet he agreed the number 2 is an issue he agreed its a problem with the number 0. Now I do think he van help Terrence solidify his ideas better and maybe learn the language of the mainstream. But the lynchpin is an example of how his version of math and geometry does work. But I agree he for sure said his verbiage on math is his weak spot.
@@bosstalkwithloskie9026 No brother, he did not agree that there was an issue with the number 2. He conducted the same experiment with 12 & 3 and came out with the same type of solution that Terrence did. What he did confirm is that current knowledge does not have all of Mathematics sorted out and there is plenty of room for discovery. There are plenty of things that the greatest minds still don't understand. Which is the concepts he validated but not his actual math. He did more than just disagree with his language as well. He flat out told him he is incorrect but he doesn't appreciate how the intellectual community of his peers have responded to Terrence.
He told him his math is wrong, and he provided him with foundational work his mathbwould have to pass in order for it to be correct.
He explained in terms of X an action by an action. Watch the whole podcast instead of being a dick
and as was discussed... and action times an action makes no fuckign sense.....
if i multiple my typing by me running to the store... what is the answer... it makes no sense..... you guys can pretend it makes sense all you want. it doesnt make it true. and the money analogy was explained in this interview. if you repeat the dollar thing, then you clearly just ignored the answer.
"Everytime I get my mode going, YOU come FuCk with iT!"
If addition is the same as Multiplication 1+1=2 😂😂😂
No one claimed it was the same
in the sense that 2 x 3 is equal to 2 + 2 + 2
for 1 x 1 = 1 the equivelent statment is 1 = 1
which is why in math often times when something is multiplied by 1 we dont even write it.
@@scottkeating3625
But Addition ISN'T the same as multiplication you're basing assumptions off of false premises...
Terrance is talking about math and staff from a hight diminution. All due respect to Eric but he was not willing to look outside the box as well as all of his colleagues. He told Terrance quite strait forward that what Terrance do is disrespectful to their careers and all those years of hard work. They will not allow anyone outsmart them and that is the their focus.
I hope Eric is lecturing Terrance just so he keeps his colleagues pleased. I hope deep down he knows that Terrance is up for revolution in science with a degrees or not.
I was expecting Eric to try to understand Terrance but nothing like that happened.
Overall, absolutely mind blowing event and great minds presenting their knowledge.
@@diyanagospodinova4926 Eric's mentioned role was to "steelman" the material presented by Terrence.
Watch the entire podcast (i know its long), but Eric does mention this. However it is his duty to also point out the completely false side of things.
Do you actually think everyone should always give an inch or more to incredibly foolish and stupid theories ideas for the sake of "Being nice".
@@Darkdiver28 I did watch the entire interview 😊
@@TalZadios I don’t think that at all! I think Terrance is after something incredibly big and his theories should be examined in depth and much details with open mind
Exponent is a multiplication
1x1 is the same as saying "1, one time"... 1, one time, is 1. I dont understand where hes getting 2, he obviously dosent understand multiplication
Terrence keeps saying "1 times 1 SHOULD equal 2" like i keep saying "this election SHOULD make things better" Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true
Terrance is saying:
3x5=15 (there are 3 fives)
5x3=15 (there are 5 threes)
3x0=0 (there are 3 zeros)
0x3=0 (there are no 3's)... but how could there not be 3's? If 3 is represented in the question, then literally, there is a minimum of 1 three present. Therefore, zero does not erase 1.
"1×0=1"
And Terrence is wrong
If you recieved 1 apple 1 time, how many apples do you have? If you recieved 1 apple 0 times, how many apples do you have?
Sets of. How many sets of.
Break it down to words
1x1 is an expression of
One set of one
0x3
Expresses the idea
3 sets of zero
You're living 2000 years in the past if you can't conceptualize zero.
Anything multiplied by zero is zero. Zero means you have nothing to add X number of times.
Threes may exist, but you dont have any, so how many 3s do you have? Zero
I think Terrence is on the brink of exposing the fabric of reality and theyre trying to discredit him as illogical 😊😅😅😅
@@miggidymark BOOM bang on
? But he doesnt even understand basic math. Literally the most basic form of math and hes just wrong. Not a good foundation to sit on if you are breaking the fabric of our reality. Hes not a genius confirmed.
And not only that but he gave terrance a warning about what he's showing and telling the world I time stamped on the original interview when Eric tells terrance that he's trying to teach on a void that no professor or math person can agree on is right nor wrong and if Howard don't stop then he will get visited by a man with an Italian last name and a suite and tie basically sounded like a threat..
Or he is a moron with no humility.
@@miggidymark He’s somehow always on the brink huh? For years now he’s been on the brink. Soon… any day…. Right?
Terrence: 💭take logs out of numbers? What an ISO muffin? 💭
This makes Weinstein More Popular Scientist. Coming after Niel DGT, who’s super skeptic about anything not academic and peer reviewed. While Weinstein is an open minded scientist.
eric was sent to make terrence seem a certain way...terrence is on to something they dont know and are scared of....WE ARE GODS
@@return2sender791 YOU COME FROM A POSITION OF FEAR>>WE DONT....out with the lies in with the truth.
1x1=2
AxB=C
Everyone knows this
Multiplication is a dimension game. It implies frequency of reoccurrence.
Squares is multiplicative with equal dimensions.
2 squared = 2x2 = 4
##
##
3 squared = 3x3 = 9
###
###
###
4 squared = 4x4 = 16
####
####
####
####
Therefore
1 squared = 1x1 = 1
#
QED
1x1=1 because it's all forms of counting with rules to help count faster and easier
Watched 30 mins of it and it proved to me my assumptions of Terrence being clueless and Eric being absolute king of not being able to express himself simply, just overcomplicating simplest things like explaining why 1x1 is what it is.
It was super symmetry in action: 3 crackpots trying to have a discussion on one podcast.
Terrence is 110% right and this guy is not sorry they’re all trying to dismiss the truth and Terrence is right. I’ve been saying this since grade 3.
No, no he's not. Howard confused addition with multiplication. 1 thing 1 time is 1 thing. That's what multiplication describes. You can't multiply 1 thing by 1 thing. You add 1 thing to 1 thing.
Im sorry, that you have difficulties with understanding maths. Its fairly complicated, but you can show with the axioms of multiplication and addition (inverse and neutral elements commutativitity, distributivity and associativity) and the successor function, that for the natural numbers multiplication is repeated addition. Everything else follows.
If you had difficulties understanding what I just said, it is okay, because these concepts are hard to understand, but believe my many really smart people took much time and effort to show, that they are consistent.
Ignorance is bliss.
@@billystanton1522 Howard is not confused. He is wrong. This podcast is a rebuttal to his outlandish claims. There was no mistake. Howard believes everything he thinks and is not qualified for that leap
@@louisdavis1370 he is 100% wrong. He is wrong because his confuses and conflates terminology.
Exactly. Multiplication just simplifies addition
If anyone here had watched the podcast properly, Eric himself calls Terrence a genius with a metaphoric mind.
Without question, Terrence Howard is profoundly smarter than you. His level of knowledge is outstanding, and Eric makes this clear.
What Eric has done is show Terrence how to NOT offend those who are masters of these subjects.
Terrence is absolutely not saying 1x1=2, he's using it as a metaphor. This is stated continually, and clipped terribly.
The internet is almost the biggest pile of injustice to any mind seeking to expand.
This was the most enlightening format for open discussion onto some of the most interesting subjects ever covered on the JRE. Everyone involved with this deserves a huge round of applause, and not a single person in this comments section has come close to achieving anything as impressive as the what this pair did during this 4 hour masterclass.
Amen.... Eric also was stating that he wanted to understand where Terrance frame of reference was based, before he criticized his math....
If he’s so smart how did he not see that telling normal people that 1x1=2 was a mistake and that normal people are going to say that’s stupid because the second number of the equation represents the number of times the first number appears so if you have one only one time that equals one and an extra one is not going to magically appear to equal two
1x1=1 would be better represented as 1=1 because one only appears once but to explain that one only appears once you would say one one time which appears as 1x1
How many left hands do you have
Only one right just because I made hands plural in my statement doesn’t mean you magically sprouted an extra left hand
If he would have never said 1x1=2 people would take him more seriously instead people say that’s stupid and this other math problem is probably wrong if you based it off 1x1=2 witch I’m sure he did not but the fact still remains if you open up with something people know is wrong they will dismiss everything that comes after that statement
@Vanguard_Spartan_00762 Sure. I see your point. You're right, terrence simply should have dumbed it down for the easy people. It doesn't matter that he started it's a metaphor around 10 times, you heard it that way, therefore he meant it that way.
If he's so dumb, why is Eric weinstein praising his incredible attempts at something new? Eric isn't telling Terrence he's right, he's telling him he's on the verge of something profound and cool.
I don't know where this needs to go from here, other than I assume you could do with a proper re-up on the session. 4 hours was heavy for anyone, admittedly I had to break it into two halves. But what I will say is that this was incredible to witness.
And blindly insulting everyone here is totally a good thing.
He said some bullshit to Terrence Howard 😆
How many people understand Terrance but not Eric ??
👋
The clueless people.
Laws of logarithms
1. logarithmic a + logarithmic b = logarithmic (a times b)
2. e power natural logarithmic x equal’s x
So e power ( log a + log b) = e power (log ab) = ab = a times b
Eric was more concerned about being kicked out of the "community " that nobody cares about and scared of his whole licence being a false 😂.
Indeed. He does not represent any academic "community".. what he actually represents is what Prof. Dr. Sam Vaknin refers to as #narcissism.
Thicker than a whale omelette 😂
The last words out his mouth is key
This is disingenuous short, Terence goes on to show he understands and fights his case well.
No he didn't. He doesn't like that 2 "loops", which mathematics calls "fixed points" and he doesn't like that mathematics describes things not found in nature, which Eric said was ridiculous. 0 doesn't exist in nature. Good luck getting rid of it.
Yeah like a flat earther arguing the earth is flat. They fight their case well also, only they are delusional and unhinged. We need to be disingenuous to these regarded people and hopefully bring back asylums.
They set Terrence up...Eric swore he wasn't trying to do him dirty but he had to know people would be clipping these shorts which make him look fully regarded.
Right or wrong, it's minds like his that achieve revolutionizing discovery.
Ok
He's not revolutionizing anything if he keeps being wrong.
Terrace is sick inside I think
Just understand what he's saying... Weinstein thinks he's smarter
This post is foul and people who think that terrance howard is bugging go and watch the 4 hr podcast like I did. He was using 1x1 as a reference. A formal education doesn’t mean you are intelligent.
No, he was wrong. He claims he used it as a metaphor to point out what's wrong with current Mathematics but what he claims is incorrect. That's his problem.
If someone says they found a problem. It has to actually be a problem. They can't be corrected only to then say, "No I meant that as a metaphorical problem, so I can bring attention to the REAL overall problem".
His math just has to be correct. And he shouldn't claim to have created something to replace current math, when he needs an expert in current math simply to explain HIS own concepts.
I genuinely loved and was inspired by this conversation. I love that he's doing independent study. But, he can't go unchecked. He needs help solving these issues because he has too many holes in what he presents forward.
Sure but he also flipped flopped on that idea multiple times saying at one point that its metaphorical/reference then meaning it literal the next. Terence is indeed bugging.
He was trying to flip on the 1x1, he said it was 2, literally, then tried to pull back and say metaphor. Try again.
Terrence is backpedaling because he probably realized how DUMB he sounded.
Terrence is effectively a math flat earther.
Everybody making fun of Terrance def didn’t watch the entire podcast😂
I did, and I’m still making fun of him, guarantee Joe is too.
I watched it, Terrance is a dumbass😭😭😭😭
For thise who dont know, the natural logarithm is the inverse function to the exponent function. Logarithms basically undo exponents. The natural log is a logarithm with base e. E is euler's number and is used all over math for having many important properties when it comes to exponents and calculus and finance. There is a law in math, that when you take a log of an exponent of the same base, since the two are inverse functionss they will cancel each other out and give what is in the brackets. Its like adding 5 to a number then subtracting 5, you are just going to get the number you started with. Now, there is another law of exponents, that when you have any numbers that are added in the exponent like e^(a+b), that is the same as e^a TIMES e^b. Think about it, if you have 2^2+1 that should equal 2^3 which is 8. Now if i do 2^2 × 2^1 i get 4×2 which gives me 8. Therefore, if we take e^ln(a)+ln(b), that can be rewritten as e^ln(a) × e^ln(b), now that we have an exponent raised to a logarithm with the same base, we can cancel them out, leaving us with a×b.
An isomorphism doesn’t really mean exactly the same thing. It just means it has the same structure. And what he’s describing is a ring homomorphism to be precise. The operation is preserved in and out of the function.
KANGZ mathamatricks!
You WS aren't that smart but you're pretty funny. 😂😂😂
@@AKAT1980 Where is wakanda? Oh.. mud huts.
@JJ3nkins89
After all of these years that's the best clap back you have? You WS are short bus with the wheelchair elevator on the back type of slow.🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@AKAT1980 yeah racist bigots had to join the fray
The fact that there's so much derision about what he's saying is actually proving his point. The premise/philosophy behind what he's saying is that mathematics has effectively been divorced from its initial association, namely to the physical world, and has been rendered essentially theoretical. If you think in terms of objects rather than numbers, if you take 2 of anything, let's say 2 jars of milk, then multiply it by 2 jars of milk, you're going to have 2 sets of 2 jars of milk to render the equation a legitimate multiplication of things, therefore there are 4 jars of milk. The same premise is extended to 1 jar of milk being multiplied by 1 jar of milk, as 2 jars of milk would have to be presented in order for the equation to be proper in the physical sense. Not that hard to understand, and certainly not worthy of derision. It actually makes sense in the context within which it is couched. And, obviously, Eric's erudite explanation of the numerical, formulaic definition is provably true as well. Literally 2 ways of looking at the same thing.
You still don’t get to make up your own definition of multiplication. If he thinks he found flaw in how multiplication works in the “real world”, then make up a new term for whatever new math he’s doing and call it Terryplication or something.
Yeah but what does it mean to multiply a jar of milk by a jar of milk? What are you physically doing?
@@TheAZNinvasion This is the best illustraton to show that maths don't have to reflect reality. jar of milk time a jar of milk gives a jar of milk squared which is true by your equation but not in reality.
@@TheAZNinvasion Just a way to visualize his premise.
He’s taking the natural logarithm of any 2 numbers so If a is 4 and b is 8 he takes the natural log of them then he adds them together then he takes the exponent of the added logs which basically means he takes the natural log of e and times it by the previous answer which is roughly the same as if you just went 8 X 4 you get the same answer.
Why is this much easier when we first heard it during our 2nd grade.
Terrence doesn't know that "2x3 means 2 three times, so 1x1 means 1 one time", and Eric is going on about logs and exponents, be real
Eric WHINEstein made the whole situation worse. It was 4 hours of him kvetching and going on long rants about nothing. He basically threatened to fight Terrence too, by using an analogy about fighting Rogan.
I hope Rogan never brings him or his brother on JRE again. They’re both insufferable, they’re honestly worse than Terrence and you can tell they just want some attention.
Terrence at least has some charisma and is amusing. Sure his ideas are completely illogical but he has a great personality. I’d say Eric has a bigger ego than Terrence, I’d also say he’s more delusional too.
Terrence is the one who’s actually giving a lesson to Eric
Yeah, just say that you don't understand Eric... and you are willing to believe anything a celebrity has to say.
A lesson in lack of humility.
@@CoolCat123450explain what Eric said & why you agree with him
This is the square root of cope
@@Kenzo-ye3oj Do you want me to explain because you genuinely want to understand the math trick he used or do you want to just say something like "math isn't real" or "you learned that in school so it's wrong"? Because if it's the latter, you're not willing to understand basic mathematics and it's not worth the discussion.
What he is saying,at 1*1 where is the one that's being multiplied and which one is the multiplier,that's 2 different ones,so which one disappears?
You can also do this, if you have the the natural log of A, or (ln A+ln B)=ln C when you have A and B and a common log like the natural log and you add the natural log of the numbers together you can rewrite it as ln(A×B)=ln C. Cancel out the natural log in both sides and get A×B=C making adding and multiplying isomorphic.
i get that ln(A)+ln(B) = ln(A×B)
but how does this mean they're isomorphic. i dont get the intuition when it comes to thinking of it from the perspective of log. i do understand it as repeated addition, of A B times or of B A times.