Revisiting Terrence Howard’s 1x1=2: New Insights & Corrections from Mike Tobias
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 06. 2024
- Welcome back to our deep dive into the fascinating world of Terrence Howard’s mathematical theories! In our previous video, "Explaining Terrence Howard’s 1x1=2 Theory: Insights from Mike Tobias," we explored the unconventional math behind Howard’s claims. Today, we’re taking a second look, armed with your feedback and some new perspectives.
🔍 What’s New?
Corrections: We address key mathematical misunderstandings from our first video, including the tricky business of unit multiplication!
Deeper Insights: Dive deeper into the metaphorical and literal interpretations of Howard's theories, especially in light of his appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, which has captivated over 8 million viewers.
🤔 Why Watch?
I wanted to clear up any confusion from our previous discussions and ensure you have the accurate information.
Join a growing community passionate about challenging traditional math and science perspectives. Share your thoughts, contribute to the dialogue, and help shape our understanding.
🎥 Expect in This Video:
A blend of humility from expert analysis and community feedback.
A simple breakdown of complex theories to make them easily understandable.
An honest reflection on previous errors-a commitment to learning and improvement.
👍 If you enjoyed our first video or are just curious about the buzz around Terrence Howard's theories, this follow-up is for you! Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated on all our future explorations.
📝 Comment Below: What are your thoughts on applying unconventional math in real-world contexts? Let’s discuss!
Until Howard produces some rigorous proof for his ramblings, they will remain just that.
sqrt(0.64) is 0.8.
Draw an inch segment, then draw another one perpendicular to it, connected at the end. Bam. 2 squares, not one.
Nope
1x3.5g=0g by next morning.
I just did my peer review this checks out
According to many crack heads. Yes.
"Yo man, you didn't give me any! Using the Howard math."
Numbers are names for quantities. Simple quantities need just one number, for example, dollars in your pockets or gallons of water or feet of wire.
Rectangular areas are a bit more complex quantities and require 2 numbers, side A and side B. Multiplying AxB gives something that is called an invariant in units^2.
Space-time is also a quantity, and to name it, you will need 16 numbers.
Simple quantities require only one number, e.g. "The quantity of fingers in a hand = 5 fingers." The invariant is also 5 (the information about the object matches the name), that is why fingers^2 doesn't make any sense.
PI is a quantity that is different. Our current mathematical system can't give PI an exact numerical name - 3.141......never ends, it is irrational.
The fun fact is that the vast majority of quantities are irrational, and our numerical system can't give them a definite symbol.
There is nothing wrong saying that 1x1=2, the problem what quantity in nature follows that?
Thanks for making me think and learning something. Your last sentence o think is unreasonable, if you can't make a reasonable case for something that exists and is described by 1X1 = 2 then you have just expressed a fantasy that is unnecessary, unjustified and unreasonable. Sure you can have your fantasy bit it contributes nothing. An infinite number of such claims can be made and nothing interesting or valuable will be made....imo.
Mathematical philosophy and mathematics for engineering/real-world purposes do not converge very well 😵💫
Terrance needs to learn science communication for any hope of communicating (as you described them) : his “metaphors”
1X1=1+1. Simple…..
Sometimes in science and engineering we bend the math to make it work. Example: The Dirac Delta function has a width of 0, an height of 1, and an area of 1...So, in this case 1 x 0 = 1.
I would ask, if zero is zero is it part of the equation? Width is 1 multiplied by height 1 multiplied by 0? 1 x 1 x 0 = 1 0 x 1 x 1 = 1. This is where Howard got me The side is one. The height is one. That should be two dimensions, Top and side. If there is a top there is a bottom. the side is the side. All sides are equal. Width can not be zero. from one side to the other. If there is a left side there must be a right side.
a height of 1?
@@meraldlag4336 Yes. That is correct.
@@UNRELATIVE doesn’t it have a height of infinity at one point?
@@meraldlag4336 Sometimes, in more informal or qualitative discussions, the Dirac delta function is described as having a height of 1, since that's the total area under the curve. However, in a strict mathematical sense, the height of the function at the point of interest is actually infinite. In either case, the height x width equal 1, which defies conventional math rules.
why are you giving Terrence the attention? He's clearly not mentally well and any looking at what he says only enables the craziness.
1:17
@@-Kei_Nagase- Nailed it! Thanks for the assist. :)
yes, but his drone design, linch pin, seems legit.
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. Time will tell who is correct. I think Terrence makes a lot of good points.
The presence of music can be easily proven by means of a microphone and VU meter.
Terrence has repeatedly failed to prove his theories to most of the greatest minds of mankind. If he is such a genius, it should not be so difficult for him not to sound demented.
There is no problem inventing a new mathmatics. Go ahead and do that, but don't condemn another math (ours) which has worked flawlessly for thousands of years. However, good luck inventing the 1x1=2 math and making it consistent over all of your selected symbols and processes.
flawlessly?
I did not watch the other video but one thought that was provoked. Is there a difference between performing real-world math and writing math without units? In practice, writing 1 x 1 = 1 might make sense, but how does this change when units are involved? Seems like Mike eluded to this theory.
if you have done some algebra, you'll understand that 3a * 4b is 12ab. The same applies with units. So no, the actual numerical result doesn't change but you might get different units
Now that Terrence has opened the discussion: 1X1 does equal 2. If 2X2 =4, then 1X1 =2. And yes, a square ounce can be represented by an ice cube weighing one ounce.
If 1 X 1 = 2, and 2 X 2 = 4, then what is 1 X 2?
Listen, it is exactly as the words read. This isn’t hard.
1 x 1. One, one time. It equals 1.
2 x 1. Two, one time. It equals two.
1 x 2. One, two times. Also two.
2 x 2. Two, two times. Equals Four.
You don’t have 1 apple times 1 apple. It doesn’t work like that. Times is for working with groups. Multiplication is for grouping things. Say you have boxes of apples. 5 apples in each box. But you only have 1 box. 5 x 1 means you have 5 apples. Have two boxes? Now you have ten apples.
You don’t multiply objects like apples with other apples. You add objects together. Multiplication is just shorthand for many addition operations. 5 + 5 + 5 = 3 x 5 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 or 15!
Also, terry gets it wrong with multiplying by zero. He thinks 6 x 0 is 6 for a dumb reason. If your boxes of apples that an order you placed comes with 6 apples and this time the truck driver forgot to bring them, you got 6 zero times meaning you have zero apples. You need this type of negation and multiplication for proper accounting and all sorts of other things. If you earn $1000 a week and this month you worked zero weeks, you don’t suddenly have $4000 dollars. With Terry’s dumb system this is how it would work, there would be no way to express a null value.
@@MrRenosis Brilliantly put but teachers don't teach it like this hence the confusion, and also it goes against equations like A x B we often see in math questions where both A and B will be different items, But could be wrong just need to check those questions again. lastly If multiplication is shorthand for addition is division shorthand for subtraction?
Is this intended to be serious?
Everyone is explaining division not multiplication.
1 divided 1 is 1. Not multiply
1/2 divided by 1/2 is 1/4. Not multiplication
That's what he's saying. Our multiplication is not right.
Hea invent4d the lynch pin. Which will soon be propelled by electromagnetism.
He uses his flower of life math geometry for this.
Our current math is dead and useless l. And innovation from it is limit4d.
If aliens came here they'd have magnetic propulsion ships, and certainly would have better math systems, like howards
"1/2 divided by 1/2 is 1/4" - no it isn't. It's 1.
You don't understand basic math, and Terrence Howard is either a grifter or a maniac - or both.
Multiplication is repetitive addition.
1x1 is 1 because 1+0 is 1. You have 1 group of 1, so you just have the number you started with
You have 1 group of 1.
1x2 is 2 because
1+1 is 2. 2 groups 1 of added together.
6x.5 is 3 because.
.5+.5+.5+.5+.5+.5 is 3
One number tells you how many groups to add together in the other number tells you what number to add
2x4 is literally 2+2+2+2
Or 4+4. Both are 8.
HE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AWARE OF WHAT MULTIPLYING A NUMBER ACTUALLY MEANS.
You can take any multiplication problem and just turn it right back into an addition problem.
Division is just repetitive subtraction by the way..
But yes I'm sure the man that literally doesn't even know how to pronounce manganese is going to change the world 🙄
I'm sorry you're not intelligent enough to see that he's baffling you with bullshit.
If 1x1 is 2 then 1x2 isn't 2 unless you want to say that 1 equals 2.
So I ask you. What's 1+1? 1+1 can be rewritten as 1x2
1/2 divided by 1/2 is not 1/4...Its 1
@LyndsieDances 1/2 MULTIPLIED by 1/2 is 1/4 !!!
congratulations. You cant do 5th grade math, yet you believe you are equipped to have an intelligent conversation about how rules of mathematics that have been known for thousands of years are wrong.
There might be some validity to some of his engineering ideas for drones. But the math stuff is nonsense.