Terrance Howard Is A Genius!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Recorded live on twitch, GET IN
Reviewed Video
• Terrence Howard On Math
By: / @provokenthought
My Stream
/ theprimeagen
Best Way To Support Me
Become a backend engineer. Its my favorite site
boot.dev/?prom...
This is also the best way to support me is to support yourself becoming a better backend engineer.
MY MAIN YT CHANNEL: Has well edited engineering videos
/ theprimeagen
Discord
/ discord
Have something for me to read or react to?: / theprimeagenreact
Kinesis Advantage 360: bit.ly/Prime-K...
Get production ready SQLite with Turso: turso.tech/dee... - Наука та технологія
When weed wants to get high, it smokes Terrence Howard.
LMAO
LOOOOOOOOL
Now this is logic I can understand.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This is the type of people who override the multiply operator.
Tbc the multiply operator does get overrided when using it with other math objects, such as vectors!
It's not multiplication it's the additive-dereferencing pointer operator. Given A*B you dereference B and add A to that value.
We have a winner boys. Comments section closed. It may not be a leader on score cards, but definitely a KO.
Best comment ever
no, this is the type of people that cook aluminium in the microwave
"Let him cook"
The mans cooking meth and thinks its food.
I think he is cooked
Seasoning those hotpockets with some blue salt.
he cooks math
Wait till he finds out
1 divided by 0.5
hahahahahahahahahha 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Well, 0.5 is 50 cents so 1 divided by 0.5 is one fiftieth. --Terrence Howard... probably
Im curious what he thinks multiplying by negative numbers would do. Knowing him he would deny their existence
@@MNbenMNno, he would say it’s one half since it’s 50 cents, thus half of 1 is 50 cents or 0.5.
@@dominikrudolf6632and he would technically be correct. Negative numbers are not real numbers from a mathematical perspective, and this is mainstream mathematics :). Meaning you can’t have negative of something, like negative space can’t exist.
Poor dude misunderstood some rudimentary aspect of multiplication decades ago and built a whole cult around it.
Black people eat this up (same with Katt Williams) for some reason. It feels desperate like the same phenomenon as "Black Hebrew Israelites"
Dude confuses the literal definition of multiplication with the mathematical one and thought he opened his 3rd eye.
Only thing he's right about is that we're all living a life that somebody created years ago
He just went with the colloquial definition of multiply, which is to "increase or cause to increase greatly in number or quantity". He should have went with the mathematical definition which is "a mathematical operation that indicates how many times a number is added to itself".
Tut-tut. Schoolboy error.
I take that back, it's an insult to schoolboys.
"addition means to increase something, so how come 10+0 doesn't give you 11?"
1 x 1 being 1 is due to a fundamental property of numbers, and multiplication essentially being repeated addition. Terrance Howard doesn't understand basic arithmetic.
You are thinking inside your box
Maybe Boeing switched to terryology engineering and that’s why planes are falling out of the sky
@@airkami Yeah, a logical one.
He would argue that it should mean that 1x1=2 then. 🙃
@@airkami You are at some point swapping definintions of words from one set to another a linguistic trick. Nothing more. 1 + 1 = 2, in mathematical terms or could be 1 + 1 = 11, string concatenation. Asking this question out of context feeling smart about yourself or swiching from one context to another without reason or justification is not genious. Its a cheap linguistic trick. Terrance says 1 dollar times 1 dollar as if the sentence makes any sence. It does not. Asking for linguisitic consistency or consistency at all is only a problem for people pushing bullshit.
Terrence Howard is the personification of unbridled arrogance.
more like mental illness, unironically
He is mentally ill. Some people say it's apophenia and it seems to fit the bill. I hope he gets the help he needs, but all he seems to be getting right now is people either indulging him in his lunacies or exposing/ridiculing him
@@PLSGuitar Apophenia is not a mental illness. I believe that he's in crisis as well, but apophenia just means making connections where none exist.
@@MadComputerScientist1 True, but it seems likely this is some kind of hallucinatory thinking indicative of mental illness. This is actually a fairly common phenomenon in physics and mathematics with people claiming all of theoretical physics over the last 100 years is wrong or they've solved the question of dark matter. Look up crackpot physicists and you'll find a bunch of Terrence Howards out there who think they're the next Einstein.
@@PLSGuitar its actually the dunning kruger effect. he didnt check any real science, he just made hes own mind with hypothesis but never bothered to check. he didnt even reach mount stupid yet and he is so self-absorbed, he will never reach the valley of self-correction
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
Thanks, Terrance.
Democrats would love this guy
Lol😅
Wow after following terryology I’m now the ceo of 3 different Fortune 500 companies and have a Bugatti
I added 2 inches in length. Thanks Terry. ♥️
Can I be your friend ?
He's the Gwyneth Paltrow of math! 😂
What color is it?
Proof it’s all luck based
I hope he doesn't find out that you can also multiply fractions smaller than 1
Or zero, or negative numbers..😂😂
@@BrandonPilane Yeah, let's leave it at that and not even include Complex Numbers to the mix...
these numbers dont exist so obviously he does not need to create a mUlTipLicAtioN taBLe for it
The title of the original video had probably a typo in it, I think they meant "Terrence Howard On Meth"
Haha
Terrence Howard is the type of guy to file a bug report for the compiler when he gets a divide by zero exception.
brutal
I'm sure he compiles a lot of stuff in his toilet every morning.
“To multiply means to make more” oh you poor soul
Apparently he forgets you can multiply with fractions smaller than 1. Or negative numbers. Or complex numbers.
Doing 2 * 0.5 is gonna blow his mind
@@TehIdiotOne Imagine when he learns about multiplication by pure imaginary quaternions, he's gonna go full Keanu
(for anyone wondering, it's a way to implement rotation in 3d space)
@@TehIdiotOne In language, multiple does mean to wind up with more after the action. If you showed him multiplying by a fraction, he would just say that it is just division. I know that he is a massive tard, but at least have better arguments than attacking his correct premise that the "word" means to get more. The part is correct. The fact that you can "multiply" fractions is just a mathematical syntax like being able to "add" a negative number. doing "1 + -2" is subtraction with an "addition" syntax.
@@ilearncode7365 go read the dictionary.
We need to show him quaternions
Tfw Prime jokingly says "action x action = action squared", and it unironically makes wayyy more sense than Terrance's seriously said "action x action = reaction"
Why should it be ironically. It's according to normal math rules
Well, "action" is not just a word of natural language. We have "action" in Physics which is basically math and other way around. And yeah, action times action is action squared, not reaction although sometimes it is reaction like when you turn on 120 degrees
@@redtreatrick5265we have a concept of “action” over in math land too! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_action
Something tells me Terrence isn't too versed in the Lagrangian formalism lmao
@@redtreatrick5265 we have a notion of “action” over in math land too! UA-cam appears to have removed my first comment including a link, but you can Google “group action math” for some more info
Terrance Howard failing to get people to (mis)use calculator is similar to me trying to explain what CLI commands to run over a voice call to someone.
why is this so relatable.
ok, as programmer, this is the best roast of this idiot I have heard so far.
You gotta drive them like a robot. One keystroke at a time.
I feel your pain.
Fun beginner project: Build the terryology calculator.
Hmmm....
What programming language would you like me to use?
@@MadComputerScientist1 The Lord's C
@@Kwazzaaap So Pytfhon counts then right? I'll invoke numpy and pandas just for show.
I won't need them, but I'll import them anyway.
This doesn't sound like a beginner's project, it sounds like a life's work
You'd go insane trying.
This just goes to show you that having money doesn’t stop you from being an absolute idiot 😂
Not only that - it also makes you more likely to out yourself as one. Especially if it's tied up with fame.
He became rich by being an actor and yeah you usually don't have to be smart to be one. We're fortunate to live in a world where there are multiple avenues to wealth than just intelligence.
Why does he have money anyway? I never heard of him but he recently popped up on my youtube recommendations. Edit: Just Googled him, so he's an actor. Maybe he's just fooling the whole world with his acting skills and will sooner or later uncover that it was just to showcase his acting skills.
I had no idea who this was so I looked him up.
> Howard also said on Jimmy Kimmel Live! that he had earned a PhD degree in chemical engineering from South Carolina State University (SCSU) that year. Howard never attended SCSU, and SCSU does not confer doctorates in chemical engineering.
OK then.
Im pretty sure you could set a chem lab or two on fire if you think 1*1=3
@@maxave7448 That's why Iron Man fired him.
So, when you square a number, and cube it. You're essentially raising that number to the power of 3/2. When you're squaring a number, and then multiplying by that number, you are again raising that number to 3/2. That's why you get the same answer. sqrt(n)^3 == sqrt(n)*n == n^(3/2)
sqrt(n) == n^(1/2)
(n^a)^b = n^(a*b)
so sqrt(n)^3 = (n^(1/2))^3 = n^(3/2)
and sqrt(n)*n = (n^(1/2))*(n^(2/2)) = n^(3/2), because n^a*n^b = n^(a+b)
WOW. You don't say, braaaahhhh
Nice answer 👍
dont show proofs the greeks wouldnt show proofs
tell them trust me bro and then be actually right and then people have to trust you bro
When you squirt a number, it is number 2?
@@hexagenic You must be really smart. Good for you to shine your junior school math knowledge on us, stupid software engineers who graduated with STEM degrees.
Can’t wait for him to show me how to center a div
You don't center a div. You let the div center you.
To be fair, before formal mathematics was invented his reasoning would probably be reasonably convincing. But once you view mathematics as its own system rather than some extension of the real world, then you have a natural consequence that whatever "multiply" means in our everyday parlance, it has nothing to do with the multiplication operator in mathematics.
Yeah, he's just disputing established semantics.
No, this makes no sense even in its most common form.
@@arcuscerebellumus8797 no, let him cook. Remember that imaginary, irrational, negative numbers and even zero weren't accepted before in the history of math. In that case, it doesn't sound that weird that maybe before multiplying by 1 wasn't even thought. I mean, in the old days everything had to do with length, area or volume.
That said, of course the guy in the video does not realize this.
@@maximofernandez196 conseptually "imagine a reality where x*x = -1" is nowhere near "1*1=3", though... not even close. I mean, he's not "imagining" anything, except the fact that everyone's out to get him.
But then again there's aslo: "Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." %)
@@maximofernandez196 Youre saying that one day we'll all realize that we've been...counting wrong? Why do people do this? "You ond't know bro! Anything could be possible!" Okay, bud. Then go multiply your dollars by smashing them together. Maybe it'll work someday.
"To multiply is to make more, right?" - not always. 6 * 0.5 = 3, which is less.
Unless you write it 0.5 x 6 = 3 because then you do get more than the 0.5 you started with...
that's fake news
A * 0 = 0 for all A.
@@skilz8098 this is a good point! i wonder what terrance thinks A * 0 is .. probably A right?
cause if 1 * 1 = 2 surely its just that he wants addition so A * 0 should equal A
@@DDvargas123 1*0=1
TOM is a gen... hol' on, wait a minute...
So what he found out is sqrt(2)*sqrt(2)*sqrt(2) = sqrt(2)*2, i.e. sqrt(2)*sqrt(2) = 2.
MIND. BLOWN.
I think the issue is he mistook ^3 for *3 on the calculator, and he thinks sqrt(2)*2 = sqrt(2)*3. I want to see his napkin math for this
@@beefeeb he didnt mistake. He's just grifting. And grifting involves saying the most amount of shit possible in shortest time possible, go around in circles to confuse your audience and at the end make them arrive at whatever destination you want
@@lengors7327 No, calling it 'grifting" is being generous. He is just a midwit with a very inaccurate level of confidence.
My guy is here sqrting all over the place
On the JRE episode 2171 he finally sat face to face with a Mathematician/Physicist that unpacked the flaws in his theories, it was done in a respectful manner😅😅.
His math is disrespectful to educated people. His arrogance is even more disrespectful.
i'll have what terrance howard is having
brain damage
Never thought I'd come out of a primeagen video dumber than when I came in.
😂😂😂😂😂
"Ok first off I thought 1 x 1 was meant to be 2" - Prime
1x1=2 is actually what Howard's theory claims, so the 1x1=3 in the clip is actually funny because it's like he keeps changing it.
It equals 2 when you do a proof that divides by 0 at some point.
I can’t get enough of my favorite UA-camrs dunking on Terrence Howard
I’m going to start putting my money in the river Bank. Because I Can open a Can of worms.
It's kind of heartbreaking to see someone who obviously has a deep curiosity about a subject but lacks enough fundamental domain knowledge to effectively reason about it resort to using word games as a substitute.
He has a lot of grandiosity and is intelligent/creative enough to make up his own complex explanations.
His downfall is that he thinks about himself as a sort of genius
He isn't humble enough to consider that, if the most fundamental and well established concept disagrees with his own thoughts, it's probably him that is wrong, not every mathematician of the past 5000 years.
He GENUINELY believes he just revolutionized our understanding of the universe in a fundamental way, with zero credentials or meaningful accomplishments.
He is grade A insane. Very entertaining.
@@carlpanzram7081he has all the hallmarks of a crackpot. This dude has been an actor for most of his life and not part of the scientific community at all. Then he comes out of nowhere with theories that defy fundamental math and physics. I think he's going through some type of midlife crisis.
It's genuine mental illness...he is seeing and believing patterns that aren't there...in his mind, it all makes sense, like divine revelation...i think the phenomenon is called 'apophenia', normally a symptom of schizophrenia, or delusional bi-polar disorder
I can assure you that that's no curiosity. It's just a deep need to prove himself better than others, along with a complete lack of basic understanding of a topic, and being too prideful to admit that you might not always be right
You can revolutionize any field in your head if you lack enough understanding of it
Back when I was still learning C's basic syntax (C was my first programming language), I would attempt to prove my functions mathematically. The easiest way to do this is to do "proof by cases". I swiftly found out that using the numbers 1, 2, and often 3 as _any_ of the inputs to such a function would yield "correct" results when the actual function was anything but. That taught me to never infer principles based on the behavior of small numbers real quick, something that far too few people know.
floating point error
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I feel this one 😂
🤯😭
Yeah his big error is certainly how his points are floating all over the place
8-bit float
Who’s in charge of the Math Jira board? There is a ticket for the backlog.
Y2K all over again… going to need to update all the systems.
We have Terence Tao at home moment.
Underrated comment
“A * B = A.” Not 8 * B = A. He never said math is a farce, he’s saying we’re given misinformation on how we learn and apply it.
I was going to invite him and a plus one to my birthday party but the caterer needs the exact number of attendees, so I didn't invite him.
this video has reduced everyone's IQ by 20
equanimity [noun] - calmness and composure, especially in a difficult situation.
Also, the currency of the universe by Terrance Howard.
Action + Action = Double Trouble
🤣🤣🤣 good one
🤣🤣🤣 good one
He's using words most people don't know just to give them the impression that he is a genius
Its hard out there for a pimp
Read * Fact = React
Think in the terms of existence (spin), fermions & Bosons
Fermions 1/2 spin Bosons 1 (full) spin
As we know Bosons give rise to fermions.
So 1 boson is equal to 2 fermions
Following this logic, 1 x 1 = 3
Comparable to how 1 hydrogen ( a universe) x 1 hydrogen ( equal universe) = 184 natural elements (chemical atomic strings to produce a Cosmos)
To understand what he means. Think of birth
A womb x a seed= a child
No element is created by a single action
Everything has an equation for existence... 1x1 is meant to duplicate... if it doesn't duplicate its not multiplied. Therefore it's not a multiple so how can it exist 🤔
The equation must be duplicated when joined if it's not then duplicated, it's non-existent
Jesus Christ, so he asks:
- Person A to do (√2)^3
- Person B to do (√2)*2
And the surprise should be that they are equal? Of course they are, because (√2)^3 = √2 * √2 * √2 = √2 * (√2 * √2) = √2 * 2
Where did he pull the 1 * 1 = 3 thing from?
This society is so arrogant, it think it's reached the apitome of knowledge but still can't explain and prove how the thousands of years old pyramids were built.😂😂😂 Keep challenging them Terrance, they are not God.
I checked my math and Time as a dimension has to be accounted for as well. So 1 x 1= 2 but in 3 dimensional space time must be added making the sum of fermions 3. 🤷🏽♂️ it’s not rocket science Brane math is much more tangent than euclidian
This is a video of a famous person developing or being exposed for a likely untreated disorder. I wish Terrence the best.
Joking aside, let's understand his behavior within the mental disorder context.
Is it a disorder if it is functional to him? He seems happy and it getting attention which is what he wants.
I'm a programmer and would defer to the expertise of professionals. As far back as ten years ago, people with better expertise than I have suggested probable diagnosis for Terrance from the DSM-5.
Asking your question on these threads and continuing the discussion there will be more informative than asking me. Best, JB.
@@buchnejf The issue is calling yourself a professional does not make you one. There's no scientific basis for documents such as the DSM-5.
@@isodoubIet I intended to indicate I am not a professional. Sorry for confusion.
@derek123wil0 had a good point in his comment, "Is it a disorder if it is functional to him." As I understand it, part of identifying a disorder is it inhibits the person. If his behavior is not inhibiting him, but helping him, why would it indicate a disorder? This interesting question is probably responded to better somewhere else. I would venture the guess that even if a behavior receives positive attention, it may reasoned that their is still a disorder because their is still inhibited thinking.
@@buchnejf I didn't mean to suggest you misrepresented yourself. I'm talking about the people who designed the DSM-5. They may be "professional" but only in the same sense that one can be a professional psychic or tarot reader. There's no indication of seriousness or reliability that comes with it. It's a religious text, nothing more, nothing less.
"equanimity is the currency of the universe." - ua-cam.com/video/hIkMs10nHl0/v-deo.html
Do you think he meant equilibrium? Because equanimity mean: a calm mental state, especially after a shock or disappointment or in a difficult situation:
Where is my third grade teacher?
I argued this tooth and nail and got sent to the principal’s office. SMFH
Thank you Terrence ❤
There will be a universal upheaval so soon 1x1 = 4. Inflation influences the equation. 😅😅😅
You guys are trying to put down Terrence.Because you're jealous.That is a black person that has come up with a genius concept
This is physically painful to watch.
You ever hear someone say something so dumb you can’t find a rebuttal for it?
“Have you ever seen an action and another action not create a reaction”
Simple physics. Two objects touching each other will not move if there is an equal force applied to each one in opposite directions.
Nah, his brain is working with floats, but round to int so we can understand, he's just a step ahead of human evolution.
easy to prove this. as any real engineer can tell you, sqrt(3) = 2 = 1, so 1×1 = sqrt(3) × sqrt(3) = 3
If he thinks 1x1 = 2 I just want to know what he thinks 0.9 x 0.9 is....or 0.1 x 0.1
How about -1x1, or -1x-1?
I find this extremely sad, this is clearly a case of a talented and accomplished person being destroyed by mental illness. Please, don't take part in this.
1 x 1 = 1
I have one one times therefore I have one
1 x 2 = 2
I have one two times therefore I have two ones
Kids learn this in kindergarten 🙄
25 seconds in and I know Terrance Howard has an incomplete understanding of math(s) and a decent dose of Dunning-Krueger syndrome.
Claiming multiplying means to increase is less than a juvenile understanding. Multiply 1 by 0.5, you get less than 1, indeed 0.5 - the same as saying 0.5 by 1, meaning "one" of 0.5. I wonder if his mind could handle multiplying by zero. 😆
Terrence is correct logically. One multipled one time could only equal two. The only way it doesn't. Is you have to change the meaning for "x" = time or times in the equation. The multiplication table is only around 500 years old. The equation lies.
(Times) the English word used for (x) in equations, for the term multiplication. Is derived from the Latin adjective multiplex, multiplicis, which means folded many times. In late Latin, multiplex became multiplus, and this accounts for the absence of the c in multiple.
latin multiplico
Etymology : From multus (“much, many”) + plicō (“fold, double up”).
It really would be much better to say the word (of) than the using the word times.
x = (of) and not x = (times)
Otherwise 1x1=2 and that could only be true with times.
I want you to squash one mosquito one time. How many mosquitoes did you squash? Terrance: 3
Geometry
Trigonometry
Calculus
Bullshitometry
Why is this random guy wearing a Netflix jacket when he doesn't work at Netflix?
"Don't argue with a fool"
The hosts practiced this for weeks to handle such stupidity
Terrence Howard is not talking nonsense, he is quoting the principles of Ma'at, our Afrikan Creator and Mother. Truth creates by separating from herself and becoming another Truth, which is to multiply herself. 1x1=2=infinity. Every number is a version of 1. There only one of each number in existence. 1= the Creator. Action x an action is referring to acts like Revenge, they say if you are looking for revenge, which is a reaction, dig 2 graves, 1x1=2.
Dig two graves… 1 grave + 1 grave = 2 graves.
1 grave * 1 grave = 1 group of 1 grave.
Terrence Howard is the guy on the internet who says pot makes him better at doing his math homework
No way cuz that would be measured by being graded by a teacher and standardized testing. When I smoked I was great at math. Aced tests without studying.
multiply (verb):
to find the product of by multiplication
multiplication (noun):
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
I think a sentence explaining an expression like "1 x 1 =", should be something like: If you have 1 of the number 1, how many do you have? I think that works on up the line, at least for positive numbers, right? Or am I being as crazy as T-How?
2 x 16: If you have 2 of the number 16, you have 32.
8 x 5: If you have 8 of the number 5, you have 40.
You have the gift of explaining.
Don't forget that.
If, by his logic 1x1 == 3, then 2x2 == swinger party
These are people who are considered successful.
Multiplication doesnt mean 'making more'. We should have never given the internet to the public
The term multiplication. Is derived from the Latin adjective multiplex, multiplicis, which means folded many times. In late Latin, multiplex became multiplus, and this accounts for the absence of the c in multiple.
latin multiplico
Etymology : From multus (“much, many”) + plicō (“fold, double up”).
Now tell us again. Is it the English language that is wrong or the definition wrong?
The only absurdist math concept I accept is "2 + 2 = fish". It's an artistic solution instead the logically correct answer of "4".
That's very close to string concatenation
Very few things actually anger me like this, but this one is actually bordering on getting me triggered
He sent a mathematical proof to Neil Degrassi Tyson. Neil sent it back covered in red ink. I thought Neil was a jerk, but I see that I didn't have the full context. 1 * 1 = 3? You shouldn't be wasting Neil's time! 🤦🏽♂️
Neil had released a video on StarTalk recently covering that email. I recommend watching the first several minutes to get more context. ^^
He replied in the nicest way possible. The correct way to reply to grifters is to tell them they're full of shit, and point out every idiotic thing they say and explain in length why it's idiotic.
Normally, when a regular old actor says nonsense, they aren't a global constant news story. What's going on with Howard? Who wants him to be able to speak so often?
Or maybe normal actors with nonsense in their heads tend not to want to be on camera after the first time and Terrance is just like "open your brain holes, everybody; I'm comin in."
Joe Rogan fell for the idiocy and popularized him, because Joe is obsessed with the idea that all of academy is evil and wrong about everything.
Yeah ikr. It's just another psyop.
His pretension is just too amusing 😂😂😂. Imagine making a fool of yourself for the entire internet to witness. Mama taught me better
I just hope he doesn’t home school his children.
my guy dont know sqrt is 0.5 power
1x1 (action & action) = result
'go there 1 time' & 'take 1' = how many u got? 1
someone tell him..
One action done one time equals one time action done.
Bros thinking outside and inside the box in parellel
This mans making a fool of himself
According to Genius Niggamatics, if you ask someone "how many times have you gone to Japan?" no matter what they answer, it must be at least 1 because it cannot be 0 since "multiplication" means "more", and 0 is not more than 0. Ergo, everyone has gone to Japan at least once.
bro is making his own math cult
My conclusion/interpretation: he’s problem is with using the word “multiplication”. Multiplication means making more. 1x1, and multiplying anything by one yields the same, thus there’s no “multiplying”. The math is not wrong as we do it. We just picked a word for a mathematical operation that doesn’t represent the rules of the math accurately.
He says A x B cannot be just A, because he had been recently told that 1x1=1 is not 2, because it is defined to be that way, and hence was told the general definition is 1 xA = A. A is obviously a variable, so can be anything, including 1, so substituting A for 1 gives 1x1=1. But now he has twisted this further and substituted "the other one" in the equation for B, and now says AxB cannot be just A. Nobody says that, because that would be AB, but since he is mentally ill, he kinda mingles the two in his head to equate 1 xA to BxA, and pretends that is the official claim of sane people.
He’s insane. Multiplying fractions doesn’t result in an increase result, but a smaller one. The point at which multiplication goes from increasing to decreasing results is 1. Then it’s increasing again at negative.
It actually is a loop, but if you use math and variables, it becomes obvious why.
sqrt(x) = x^(1/2)
eqn 1: x^(1/2) * x = x^(1 + 1/2) = x^3/2
eqn 2: (x^(1/2))^3 = x^(3 * 1/2) = x^3/2
2^(3/2) is that 2.82... number they got to.
Dividing x^3/2 by x is equivalent to subtracting 2/2 from the "3/2" exponent. Cubing x^1/2 is equivalent to multiplying the "1/2" exponent by 3.
It's basic algebra and has nothing to do with 1*1 lol.
Hi kids. Today Terrence Howard is going to disprove the Pythagorean theorem with this one simple trick!
The actual formula is:
(√x)^3 = (√x)*x
because
(√x)^3 = (√x)*(√x)*(√x) = (√x)*x
as multiplying √x with itself yields x
The trick is in how √ behaves
The issue is the lack of clarity regarding the process of multiplication. You have something you WANT to multiply and you have the number of times YOU WANT TO MULTIPLY IT. Therefore if you have ONE YOU WANT TO MULTIPLY ONE TIME YOU WILL HAVE ONE THING. IF YOU HAVE ONE THING YOU WANT TO MULTIPLY TWO TIMES YOU WILL HAVE TWO THINGS.
If you have two things you want to multiply three times you have six things, etc.
It's not difficult to understand...if you are MULTIPLYING anything, it will INCREASE.... not stay the same. DUH
Good grief. The square root of any number, cubed, then divided by the original number, is the square root of the individual number.
Easily proven with a pile of Legos. Or with logarithms. Or, come to think of it, horse sense.
I agree if 2x2 equals 4... 2+2 equal 4 which is the same so we've been taught why doesn't 1X1 equal 2? I have always asked myself the same question as a child....We say one thing but it contradicts the other so which is true despite what you've been shown??
(2^(1/2))^3 = 2^(3/2) = 2^(1/2) * 2, that's why they got the same result. Their equal expressions Sherlock!
Also, x^3 = 2 * x implies x * (x^2 - 2) = 0 implies x = 0 or x = +-sqrt(2). Actually, x^3 = 2 * x if and only if x = 0 or x = +-sqrt(2). There's nothing unnatural about this Sherlock!
There is an obvious error at about 0:16.
Terrence states: "Multiplication means to make more or increase in number". No! (1/2 * 4 =2 < 4).
In general, we Prove: If (0 < x < 1) and (y > 0). then 0 < x * y < y.
Note: Without the multiplicative identity property (a * 1 = a), the above statement cannot be proven.
Definition: a < b means b - a > 0.
Property of positive elements: if a > 0 and b > 0 then a * b > 0.
Proof: (x > 0 and y > 0 implies x * y > 0) and ((0 < x < 1) implies 1 - x > 0) and (y > 0) implies (1 - x) * y > 0 implies 1 * y - x * y > 0(Distributive property)
implies y - x * y > 0(multiplicative identity property) implies 0 < x * y < y.
Without the multiplicative identity property used above we don't have a proof, yet no one denies that 1/2 * 4 = 2 < 4.
It may be that Terrence is doing what Terrence does best, that is, acting.
The "loop" he's describing is essentially "x^3 / x^2 = x"
He says this only works with 2, but it works with everything - he just starts at 2, tells you to sqrt(), so you end up with what I'm calling x.
Then he says to cube that, so you end up at x^3
Then he says divide by 2, and you end up back at x. Of course you do. 2 = x^2.
Start with 5, sqrt, cube, divide by 5, OH LOOK, IT'S SQRT(5) AGAIN.
He just thinks there's something special about the number 2, and rather than digging into 7th-8th grade algebra to figure it out, he's proclaimed himself the greatest mathematician of all time.
The term "multiply" in mathematics originates from the Latin word "multiplicare," which means "to increase" or "to fold many times." So mathematicians are saying if I 'increase' 1, one time, I still have 1?
Increase from what? 0. So I increased 1 from nothing? How? 1+1 = 2 is correct. THAT makes sense. A 1, one time is 1. That makes sense. Not 1X1 (Multiply) = 1. Nope!
This only implies that everything has always existed. Not come from nothing as math implies. Humans are stupid! 😁
1+1=2. But to multiply is to reproduce 1*1=3....🎵and that's the magic number. 😂 Man *Woman had a little baby 🍼 and they were 3.....and that's the magic number.🎵