Terrence Howard’s Bizarre War on Basic Math
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 чер 2024
- Terrence Howard's book:
tcotlc.com/
Terrence Howard's Loop Isn't that Impressive:
• Terrence Howard's "Squ...
Terrence Howard's 1 x 1 = 2 Proof is Incorrect
• Terrence Howard's 1x1=...
The fundamental theorem of algebra states that all polynomials of degree N with complex coefficients are factorable into N complex linear factors. That is, all polynomials of degree N with complex coefficients have N locations where the polynomial evaluates to 0 (sometimes the same place multiple times).
Welcome to my channel!
Thanks for sharing that. Hopefully someone will provide the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus now.
math.libretexts.org/Courses/Monroe_Community_College/MTH_210_Calculus_I_(Professor_Dean)/Chapter_5%3A_Integration/5.3%3A__The_Fundamental_Theorem_of_Calculus_Basics
@@MadComputerScientist1 I know it comes in two parts, and one of the parts is that for any differentiable function f(x), the integral from constant k to variable t of f'(x)dx is f(t), that is, int(0,t,f'(x)dx)=f(t). I don't use the FTC nearly as often as for algebra (I'm a grade school math tutor by trade).
I also like to remember that the fundamental theorem of arithmetic and fundamental theorem of algebra are basically the same thing: all fundamental objects in the area of study (natural numbers for arithmetic, polynomials for algebra) can be broken down into a unique collection of foundational pieces (primes or linear factors).
@@MadComputerScientist1 Fundamental theorem of arithmetic: every integer greater than 1 can be represented uniquely as a product of prime numbers.
Fundamental theorem of calculus: The integral is the antiderivative.
Thanks, I forogt the every integer greater than 1 part.
@@danedormio you can also expand it to 1 by defining 1 to be the product across all primes to the 0th power (i.e. describe all positive integers --or even rational numbers-- as the unique string of integer exponents of all prime numbers, thus all 0s would be 1)
"Why happened to Howard?" is more appropriate than "what"
The "why" is answered here, if his own story is to be believed. I personally don't believe it and have my own guesses about what is going on which I've already expressed.
I am not qualified to diagnose what I suspect is wrong with Howard.
Why's on first.Howard's on second with three outs in the last inning.
It's all bout them waves conjugating, mayne!
o, s, t, mus, tis, nt, r, ris, tur, ...
Sorry, conjugation made me flashback to my high school Latin classes.
There are some people who claim to actually believe him. If thats true, its very dangerous
Welcome to my channel!
Although I agree that misinformation is dangerous, I am curious what types of dangers Howard's blend of throwing terms from physics, mathematics and occasionally biology together could cause?
No more dangerous than any other religious movement, except perhaps when he starts claiming to have the "cure" for cancer and AIDS.
@@MadComputerScientist1 The greatest potential harm is probably that people believe will believe him and get conned out of their time and/or money.
Why? What are they going to do with fundamentally broken calculations. Continue to be made a mockery of? Let me know when they make a CPU that's using "Terryology" timing calculations for the cycles. 🤣 The only thing dangerous is Howard, but I'd imagine that's always been the case, long before any of this.
And then there's opportunity cost and increased vulnerability to future misinformation. If they're believing that 1x1=2 then they're not believing a great many more useful things, and they're more likely to be gullible enough to believe other bogus claims uncritically.
An uneducated public incapable of critical thinking is a danger to all of us.
If he had any real friends they'd be using his own logic w/ him in everyday conversation by "correcting" him every time he uses the words "a" or "an" until he's so annoyed he gives up.
T: "I gotta go take a dump."
*"So, you gotta take TWO dumps, you mean, Terry."*
*"Where's that $200 you promised me, Terry?"*
T: "Hold on, but I only said 'A' hundred !"
*"Correct, & a single unit of $100 is $200. I don't make the rules, Terry, you do, remember?"*
roughly speaking, the fundamental theorem of calculus states that the indefinite integral of a function is its antiderivative
I tried watching a Howard movie the other night. All I could think about was the insane amount of crazy that was bouncing around in his head.
Obviously Mr Howard has never read Sherlock Holmes: "you've got to adjust the theory to fit the facts, not the facts to fit the theory".
"If I knew anything about physics I would know why this sounds like gibberish rather than just saying it sounds like gibberish to me" - inverse dunning krueger
Welcome to my channel!
I don't know if it's inverse Dunning-Krugerr or not. I just know I don't know physics well enough to even get to the peak of Mount Stupid for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Why are we giving this guy any traction?
Sadly, Joe Rogan gave him a platform on the most popular podcast in the world.
so you're worried more people are gonna eat horsepaste or something? what's the worst case scenario? he's right? some random guy still thinks space is flat?@@MadComputerScientist1
Space is flat.
www.scientificamerican.com/blog/degrees-of-freedom/httpblogsscientificamericancomdegrees-of-freedom20110725what-do-you-mean-the-universe-is-flat-part-i/
Did you mean the Earth?
Of course flat space and a flat surface don't mean the same thing, but this is something you could have checked easily. Cosmology is hard to wrap your head around and is often counterintuitive.
As for the worst case scenario, watch the entire Joe Rogan podcast. Mister Howard did not limit himself to being wrong about math. His ideas about chemistry are interesting and dangerously worng, as were his takes on covid.
how? I still don't see the danger in a random person on youtube getting facts wrong. I only see the danger in corporate news outlets and accredited scientific authorities getting facts wrong. Do you think a racist cop is gonna shoot someone 1×1 times now because he learned gravity is fake? @@MadComputerScientist1
rogan let him ramble for hours. it was pretty boring.
no one really took it seriously, but that was exactly the point...
I'd say Terrence Howard loved the movie Interstellar
By saying "the square root of 2 is a loop" could he mean a repeating decimal? (It isn't, of course).
Welcome to my channel!
No he doesn't mean repeating decimal. He means you can repeat the process indefinitely and get the same result.
I did find the term loop is used in math thanks to another comment, but it refers to continuous functions in topology.
In programming that's called a "float" value or floating point. At it's most simple, a floating point is just a number with a decimal point. The application of it is anything but simple. Look up "Floating-point Arithmetic".
Hi. I'd like to comment on something small. "Loop" is not exclusively a programming term. It somewhat aptly describes what Terrence is doing with that whole shtick -- a process that (trivially provably, due to the rules of algebra) loops.
An interesting tidbid I gained from various clip about Howard: he proclaims that 1 x 1 =2... but he also does that "loop" trick where he uses the (correct) squareroot of 2... and here we learn that he declares that this sqr(2) is rational.
Does he really not understand what a squareroot is... and that if he was correct, that squareroot of 2 would _be_ 1? (Which, admittedly, is rational).
I'm totally not opposed to "new ideas" and "thinking outside of the box". But if he really wanted to do that... he should at least understand what the "old ideas" and the "box" really stand for.
How is he showing us that the square root of 2 is rational with his loop trick? All he's showing us is a consequnce of the way the laws of exponents work.
n^3 / n^2 = n, as long we we're dealing with positive and non-zero values of n.
Oh I see. I misread the statement. My mistake.
I really should do a video on the laws of exponents now.
@@MadComputerScientist1 It's the fundamental concept of bullshitting: say so much nonsense in the shortest possible time, and you will just silence your opposite. Because while he is thinking about what you said just now is wrong, you are already four "arguments" onwards.
That's the main reason why I think he is sincere in what he is trying to say, instead of just acting. You can do that Gish-gallop style in a conversation, but when you write it down and make it publically accesible... you will have people going through your nonsense step by step and showing where you are wrong.
I took a class last semester on set theory/formal mathematics, and one of the many things I did during that class was use a formal definition of the successor function (the function that returns the next natural number after its input; basically just sigma(n)=n+1) to show that 1 is the multiplicative identity. Even when you abstract all the way down to the lowest level of ZFC (which we only ever briefly discussed on the last day of class and never actually really worked with; I imagine it would be extremely tedious), the statement that 1*n=n should still hold.
There's a reason math is the way it is - it needs to be logically consistent for anything to work. I'm pretty sure that trying to axiomize 1*1=2 would require you to redefine literally everything else.
Welcome to my channel!
You have just made me glad I decided to be a computer science major and not a math major, not that computer science can't get just as confusing to an outsider sometimes. I don't think any comp sci student even at the graduate level understands graph theory unless they really start playing around with it.
Great video! Thanks for the shout-out in the description! The Terrence Howard rabbit hole is deep!!
I think I found the story about the argument with his teacher telling. It might just be because it's the sort of thing I would have looked for when I worked as a journalist years ago.
I just wish I were positive that this was not some kind of mental health episode.
@@MadComputerScientist1 Honestly, if he ever comes out and admits that he's just like bi-polar or whatever and having manic episodes with acute psychosis whenever he does these public appearances, I'd 100% formally apologize to him and take my videos down, since I laugh at him a lot. But he's been at this for OVER A DECADE at this point!! Delusional, maybe, but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a full-on "mental health episode" because I know a LOT of people who are NOT "mentally ill" but certainly "delusional", so it's difficult to tell where character defect ends and mental illness begins. It'd be an interesting discussion. I feel like I could teach a class on Terrence Howard at this point, LMAO... the rabbit hole goes deep!!
Terrence Howard's knowledge, concepts, and formulations are beyond the ken of your trained scientific mind.
Welcome to my channel!
Here at the Mad Computer Scientist channel we approve of snarky comments so long as they are not directed at us. We may sometimes forgive snarky comments directed at us if they are sufficiently funny, like pointing out that our use of the royal plural in this paragraph is pretentious and thoroughly ridiculous.
@@MadComputerScientist1 HE'S GOT FORMULATIONS! DON'T YOU SEE??
I eagerly await his solution to the P vs NP problem. Given by what he's holding in his hand, I bet it will be an interesting exploration of graph theory.
I'm highly amused at the sheer number of comments like this. Do you have a background in math or physics?
"...formulations are beyond the ken of your trained scientific mind." I'd appreciate it if you'd make that make any logical sense. If your foundation is 2 being rational, then you've rewritten calculus. You're going to have to show your work, not some weird chess board.
I apologize for the confusion surrounding this. The initial recording suffered from the microphone being switched between my Blue Snowball Mic and my Logitech headset, which resulted in inconsistent sound quality. I had to rerecord and re-upload the video. The original premiere failed to go off at the scheduled time as well. It was just a frustrating night of technical problems all around.
Hi
Unity is defined as the multiplicative IDENTITY
The element in the number field which results in no change under multiplication
If you say 1*a≠a you have immediately contradicted yourself
That's it
All you need to explain to Terrence
Welcome to my channel!
Thanks.. I'd never heard of one referred to as Unity before, but it makes sense.
Sadly, 1 * 1 = 2 is not the only thing he's gotten wrong.
If he were simply trying to come up with a new logical system and not say the way we define math is wrong, there wouldn't be as much of an issue as long as the logical system is consistent. It may or may not have practical applications, and other people would decide for themselves if they wanted to play around with his rules.
The problem here is he's trying to say basic arithmetic, a logical system with its own set of rules that has had practical applications for millennia is wrong and that he is right.
@@MadComputerScientist1 ok
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)
Real numbers are an example of a field
That page introduces the additive group
We all learn maths a bit backwards
Here's some padding
A group is a set with one binary operation
Binary because it takes two members of the set and produces a (not necessarily distinct) third member
a+b=c
The axioms for the operation are
For any a,b in the set a+b is also in the set, this is called closure
For any a,b a+b=b+a this is associativity
There is a unique member of the set called the additive identity, zero such that
For all a in the set a+0=0+a=a
It's the identity because it changes nothing, and that's the definition of zero
Having defined zero we define the additive inverse, for all a in the set there's a (-a) such that a+(-a) = 0 and that gives us subtraction as the inverse of addition
That's a group
A Field is a set with two binary operations the other being multiplication
The axioms go just the same but the identity is 1, and it's not quite a group because zero has no multiplicative inverse a/0 is not a member of the set
However the point for Terrence is that unity is defined as the thing that doesn't change what it multiplies
1*a=a for any a including a = 1
1*1=anything not one is not a number field, you could choose to define something else but it's not numbers any more
Anyhow the wiki should explain it all better
I looked up what you were saying, and I saw that you were right. But thanks for the explanation! You can never be sure what other people might have never heard it defined that way.
Thank you for covering this word spaghetti. Glad I found your channel.
I'm not as familiar with math anymore, but I'd be curious about your content.
Welcome aboard!
Very interesting, thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it
the craziest thing about all this to me is that people believe him. it really makes me feel like he knows exactly what he's doing and knows that all of the stuff hes saying is bs, but it makes people believe him and thats exactly what he wants for whatever reason. or, maybe he really is just this dull. who knows.
Can someone show him the reinmann hypothesis and explain; that's why.
I hope one of the math people can expand further, but here's a link to an explanation of the hypothesis.
www.claymath.org/millennium/riemann-hypothesis/
*Riemann
@@magicmulder wow. Your special.
@@MadComputerScientist1 there are infinite sets of numbers between 0-1.
1 is special, it is self referential, this is why multiplying it does not equal 2.
@@helicalactual Now if you could convince Terrence Howard of that, we might get somewhere. It's way too early in the morning for me to try to deal with axiomatic set theory.
I don't think that's the Riemann hypothesis though. But unlike Howard, I'm not claiming to deserve a Millennium Prize from the Clay Mathematics institute.
Sounds like a young kid was being taught square roots and in a moment of brilliance asked about the square root of 2 (asking about sqrt 3 would be similar). The teacher did not give a good answer (there are enough teachers that there are many horror stories about a bad teacher being confidently incorrect when asked about something beyond the scope of the lesson). In response the young kid (without knowledge about irrational numbers, and maybe no experience of non integers above 1) guessed the next smallest integer must be the right answer. From there you have 2 people being confidently incorrect at a formative age for the young kid.
sqrt 2 =/= 1. This is a tragic story if I am understanding it.
I personally do not believe the story he told. It'd just be another in a long chain of lies he's already told, some of which were provably wrong. While he does hold some patents, he does not hold 97 of them, he does not have the patent on VR, and the first forms were invented in 1968. (Howard was born in 1969.) I am not clear on if he went to Pratt, but he definitely did not study chemical engineering at the time he claims to have gone there because the program was shut down before he attended, and he held a contest to get people to design his drones for him.
Of course, if he just says this was all an act, I'd believe that as well. He is an actor.
I personally think after a week or two on seroquel his insistiance on all of this would disappear.
While ascribing the quote that "Everything is related" to Einstein is symptomatic of a grave misunderstanding of the theory of general relativity, it seems in even poorer taste when you consider that Einstein was married to his cousin
One time I invented a revolutionary new system of mathematics. I told some people that 1+1=2, therefor 2+2=1. Then they asked me "What is 1+2?" And I told them to shut up.
😂😂😂😂😂
I liked your system can i offer my assistance
There are more than one solution
1.5 or 2.5
And to make that clear i will do the following
-) 1+2=?
Since 2+2=1
Our equation can be
2+2+2=?
Which is basically
1.5 and if your common sense didn't tingle just divide both sides by two
2+2=1
||
√
2/2 + 2/2 =1/2
||
√
1+1=0.5
Since 1+1=2
So does 0.5
Or it can be 1 using the same logic making 0.5 something that have dual nature, constant properties and variable properties like an electron
Other solutions
1 or 2
-) let's say
1+2=x
Since 1+1=2 and 2+2=1
We can say
2+2+1+1=x
Which is
1+2+1+2=x
Since 1+2=x
x+x=x
2x=x
Divide both sides by x
2=1
So we can say
1+2=1+1=2
Or
1+2=2+2=1
And so on ,can you even Imagine what such a system can do, marvelous
Let's call this the non binary system, partner 🤝(and don't worry we are not going to fight over who came with this game changer first,i already admit it's you)
@@2FreePalestineFreeYourself Thank you 2FPFY, I think that is really where I was going with this, a new way of looking at mathematical operations, as taught to kindergarten students. And often times Kindergarten students pose more challenging questions than Maths PHDs.
Let homonids play around with mathematics a bit and see comes up with this.
11:35 I just looked into Einstein's famous article on Brownian motion (1905). And lo and behold, the square root of 2 _does_ appear in that article. So Mr. Howard is simply unable to do basic reading.
That's good to know. Not being a physicist or someone with a deep interest in the subject, I didn't even know Einstein wrote a paper on Brownian motion.
If 1x1=2 then of course engineer=physicist. That's just math.
16:44 graph theorists use the word "loop", are they not mathematicians?
Someone already corrected me on this point. But thanks.
I had so much graph theory in my computer science courses -- including one in the first semester of grad school, that I almost forget it *is* math and not computer science.
@@MadComputerScientist1 understandable
Just for correction "Loop" it is a term used in many areas of math, and have different meanings depending on the context you are using it (for example loop in algebra and combinatorics its an algebraic structure wich is kind of a group without the associativity, and in topology a loop is a continous function from the unit circle to a topological space, not to mention that the programming meaning of a loop can definitely be regarded as a mathematical term aswell). I dont know much about Terrence Howard's book since this is the first time im hearing of it (and i wish i hadn't lol), so i dont know exactly what he refers to as "loop". But to be honest i kinda like the word "loop" as a description for irrationality since irrational numbers can be associated with "not halting" in many instances, so i guess we can say they are kind of "loopy" xd.
Someone already brought this up, but thanks.
I wonder if he's a "flat earther"?
Oddly enough, no.
He does think the Ancient Greek philosophers of the time of Pythogoras thought the world was flat, rather than realizing they're the first people who realized the Earth was spherical.
16:05 nonono he thinks 1 + 1 is one. That is multiplication.
Welcome to my channel!
I believe he does do 1 + 1 = 2 correctly. It's 1 * 1 he is on a personal crusade against. The reason I'm lesss concerned with him saying something like 1 + 1 = 1 is because it's actually true for Boolean algebra. But in this case it simply means "1 or 1".
ua-cam.com/video/92Z3gOIoH-I/v-deo.html
Oh and if you're referring to my referene to boolean algebra, there 1 + 1 = 1. It's just that the "plus" sign means "OR".
And Boolean algebra has wide practical application, as it is the foundation for all modern electronics.
@@MadComputerScientist1 lol I have no idea where my brain was when I posted this. I guess I was just all ruffled because this guy infuriates me because in his interviews, he clearly believes he is some kind of god*. Boolean algebra makes total sense to me, didn't remember it being mentioned in the video though. (Probably due to my frustration.)
ok but just so we're clear I was on team Terrence the whole time...for reals... #FieldsMedal
Welcome to my channel!
Howard is 55 and the Fields medal is awarded to mathematicians under the age of 40.
@@MadComputerScientist1 55 < 44 in terryology, mayne
I think people making videos debunking him just entertains his ideas and make him more popular. Just ignore this clown lol.
I *_knew_* it was just a matter of time before suggestion that "maths is racist" reared its ridiculous head! 😂
I don't know what he means by saying the Identity Property is the Jim Crow of mathematics, but I don't think he's calling math racist, although math can and has been used in racist ways. I think it's just another one of his many nonsensical ramblings that are poorly connected to reality.
@@MadComputerScientist1 Either way, the guy's clearly got a bit of a screw loose...
Most people aren't following this particular sociocultural blip and most of those who are are like you and me, sensible observers who never had any doubt about 1*1 BUT we're interested in the controversy enough to note the people who don't seem so grounded in reality. A LOT of people who are prone to radical conspiracy theories are claiming Howard is right even though these people DON'T understand the basic foundation of reality enough to rationally explain why Howard is right (which would be impossible), and THAT IS dangerous but the problem existed before terryology. Another person in this very thread mentioned the phenomenon of Donald The Dumpster Trump and the similar whacked out conspiracy theories of the maga moonbats; it's become the first true internet cult in history and it's ten times as dangerous as anything that could have arisen from the Joe Roganverse because maga is socioPOLITICAL and actually started with right wing hate radio.
I thought there was some educational value in addressing the math. There could be some educational value in addressing the tech support issues that are causing Terrence Howard to think that "they" are turning off his phone when he's trying to do math, but it's clear he's just unaware of his phone's display time out settings.
He knows he's lying. When you ask someone a multiplication question, what is most commonly said? What is 1 "times' 1? Someone has *had* to have said this to him years ago. He must have chose to ignore it, for who knows why. Only he does. Nothing will ever convince me otherwise. This seemingly intelligent and articulate guy doesn't understand a "number" that "number" of "times"? He does. It's the physics he's attaching he doesn't understand. You said it: 00:07:33 And you're right, it just isn't a prerequisite to it's function. He thinks he can change math because of his megalomaniacal physics delusions. At least, that's what I'm seeing here.
I would not be surprised if this all turned out to be an Andy Kaufman style piece of extended performance art, but I get the impression he is suffering from an untreated mental illness because I had a relative who acted in a very similar way when she was not taking her anti-psychotic medications. If it turns out that I am right, I will take both videos about him down. I will also do this if he just admits it was an act, which would indeed make him incredibly bright, even if he's not a math or physics genius.
The last paragraph is pure speculation on my part and I am not qualified to diagnose him. I think the people around him need to get him the help he needs, but like other celebrities and people in positions from power, he's being shielded from people telling him how wrong he is. Even if this is the case, getting someone involuntarily committed to a behavioral health ward is not an easy process.
Still, he did make a good War Machine in the first Iron Man.
Multiplication looks different in different numbers of dimensions. You're thinking he's talking about the 1D number '1' but he's actually talking about the transition from the 1D to 2D and what it looks like. I think he's right.
Welcome to my channel!
I don't think that about Howard, nor do most people in this thread. Most people here seem to think he's in some sort of mental health crisis and would benefit from therapy and anti-psychotic medications.
The only reference I could find to dimensional numbers was matrix multiplication, and Howard is definitely not ready for linear algebra.
@@lincolnuland5443 He's not. Integers are simply defined for a reason. They CAN have dimensional representation, certainly, but they aren't bound to it for any reason. The physical is not a prerequisite to equation, they are independent of each other no matter how much you want them to be inseparable. "The transition from the 1D to 2D and what it looks like" is well understood. It's called geometry.
"Multiplication looks different in different numbers of dimensions. " No. Perception is different in different dimensions. The math is identical, to infinity. Can you provide any model? Some form of test or experiment? Anything demonstrating the differences in times tables at different dimensional depths?
You have to show you work, not some weird chess board.
@@jasoncravens1124 I'll quote you on that.
Terrence the ignoramus
I think people quickly call Terrence stupid and similar insults too quickly. I am probably guilty of it as well. But no, Terrence is bad at math, physics, engineering and chemistry. I don't think he's stupid.
What a waste of time!
Thank you for the feedback.
Eagerly waiting to purchase the calculator based on THS (Terrence Howard Syndrome) maths: i.e 1X1=2 rule. must be real fun to get the result of calculations! lol.