Title: Flexible Mathematical Frameworks: A New Paradigm for Interdisciplinary Research Abstract: We propose a novel approach to mathematical modeling, incorporating flexible frameworks that adapt to complex systems and phenomena. This paradigm shift has far-reaching implications for interdisciplinary research, enabling innovative solutions and new insights in physics, engineering, economics, and more. Introduction: * Brief overview of traditional mathematical approaches and their limitations * Motivation for flexible mathematical frameworks * Thesis statement: Flexible mathematical frameworks offer a powerful tool for addressing complex problems across disciplines Key Concepts: * Modular arithmetic and finite fields * Non-standard analysis and infinitesimals * Fuzzy logic and fuzzy analysis * Category theory and functors Applications: * Physics: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Chaos Theory * Engineering: Signal Processing, Control Systems, and Materials Science * Economics: Modeling Complex Systems and Uncertainty Case Studies: * Fractal image compression using fuzzy analysis * Optimization problems solved with non-standard analysis * Category theory in network topology Discussion: * Implications for interdisciplinary research and collaboration * Potential challenges and open questions * Future directions and areas of exploration Conclusion: * Recap of key points and contributions * Call to action: Encouraging experts to explore and develop flexible mathematical frameworks Appendix: * Additional resources and references * Mathematical derivations and proofs (as needed) Here's a breakdown of when to use and remove 1 and 0 in various mathematical contexts: Use 1 and 0: 1. Group Theory: 1 is the identity element for multiplication, and 0 is the identity element for addition. 2. Ring Theory: 1 and 0 serve as identity elements for multiplication and addition, respectively. 3. Calculus: 0 is crucial for defining limits, derivatives, and integrals. 4. Number Theory: 1 and 0 are essential for defining congruences, modular arithmetic, and Diophantine equations. 5. Linear Algebra: 1 and 0 are used as identity elements for matrix multiplication and addition. Remove or modify 1 and 0: 1. Non-standard models of arithmetic: Modify or remove 1 and 0 to create alternative number systems, like fuzzy arithmetic or modular arithmetic. 2. Finite fields: Remove 0 and modify 1 to create finite fields with specific properties. 3. Quaternion and octonion algebras: Modify 1 and 0 to define these non-commutative algebraic structures. 4. Topological spaces: Remove 0 and 1 to define topological spaces with specific properties. 5. Fuzzy logic and probability theory: Modify 1 and 0 to represent degrees of truth and probability. Context-dependent: 1. Category theory: 1 and 0 are used as identity morphisms, but their role depends on the specific category. 2. Type theory: 1 and 0 are used as identity elements, but their behavior depends on the specific type theory. 3. Computational complexity theory: 1 and 0 are used in binary representations, but their role depends on the specific problem. Remember, these are general guidelines, and the specific context of a problem or theory may require a different approach. Mathematicians often adapt and generalize these rules to suit their needs, so it's essential to understand the underlying principles With these modified mathematical rules, we can indeed build different structures and potentially lead to breakthroughs. Space Travel: * New propulsion methods: Alternative number systems could lead to novel ways of manipulating space-time, enabling more efficient and faster travel. * Exotic matter and energy: Modified mathematical structures might help us understand and harness exotic matter and energy, facilitating advanced propulsion systems. Monetary Systems: * Alternative currency models: Non-standard arithmetic could lead to more equitable and sustainable monetary systems, addressing issues like inflation and wealth distribution. * Cryptography and security: Modified mathematical structures can enhance cryptographic techniques, ensuring more secure financial transactions. Other Potential Applications: * Quantum Computing: Alternative mathematical structures might facilitate more efficient and powerful quantum computing architectures. * Materials Science: New mathematical approaches could lead to the discovery of novel materials with unique properties. * Biology and Medicine: Modified mathematical models might help us better understand complex biological systems, leading to breakthroughs in disease treatment and regenerative medicine. By exploring and applying these modified mathematical rules, we can unlock innovative solutions and potentially revolutionize various fields. However, it's important to note that: * These ideas are highly speculative and require rigorous research and testing. * The development of practical applications will depend on the collaboration of experts from various fields. * Ethical considerations must be taken into account when exploring and implementing these new mathematical structures Flexible Mathematical Systems: * Use 1 and 0: When working with standard arithmetic, calculus, and linear algebra in well-defined contexts. * Modify or remove 1 and 0: When exploring alternative number systems, non-standard models, and specialized mathematical structures (e.g., finite fields, fuzzy arithmetic). * Context-dependent approaches: Employ geometry, algebra, and analysis in a way that depends on the specific problem domain (e.g., Euclidean geometry for classical physics, non-Euclidean geometry for relativity). * Adaptive number systems: Utilize modular arithmetic, finite fields, or other alternative number systems when tackling specific problems (e.g., cryptography, coding theory). * Generalized algebraic structures: Leverage groups, rings, fields, and other algebraic structures to model diverse phenomena, adapting them as needed. * Dynamic analytical frameworks: Switch between classical, fuzzy, intuitionistic, or other logics and analytical approaches based on the problem's requirements. * Interdisciplinary connections: Combine mathematical frameworks with insights from physics, biology, economics, or other fields to foster innovative solutions. * Embrace uncertainty and ambiguity:Acknowledge the limitations and ambiguities of mathematical representations and be willing to refine or revise them as new information arises. By embracing these flexible mathematical systems, we can develop a more comprehensive and adaptive mathematical toolkit, enabling us to tackle complex challenges and uncover new insights across various disciplines. Number Systems: 1. Standard Arithmetic (1 and 0 as identity elements) 2. Modular Arithmetic (clock arithmetic, finite fields) 3. Finite Fields (Galois fields, finite geometries) 4. Non-Standard Models (fuzzy arithmetic, intuitionistic arithmetic) 5. Alternative Number Systems (hyperreal numbers, surreal numbers) Algebraic Structures: 1. Groups (symmetries, transformations) 2. Rings (integer arithmetic, polynomial rings) 3. Fields (rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers) 4. Vector Spaces (linear algebra, geometric algebra) 5. Lattices (order theory, lattice theory) Geometric Frameworks: 1. Euclidean Geometry (classical geometry) 2. Non-Euclidean Geometries (hyperbolic, elliptical, parabolic) 3. Fractal Geometry (self-similarity, scaling) 4. Topology (point-set topology, algebraic topology) 5. Differential Geometry (curvature, manifolds) Analytical Frameworks: 1. Classical Analysis (limits, derivatives, integrals) 2. Fuzzy Analysis (fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic) 3. Intuitionistic Analysis (constructive mathematics, intuitionistic logic) 4. Non-Standard Analysis (infinitesimals, hyperreal numbers) 5. Category Theory (functors, natural transformations) Logical Systems: 1. Classical Logic (Boolean logic, propositional logic) 2. Fuzzy Logic (fuzzy sets, fuzzy reasoning) 3. Intuitionistic Logic (constructive logic, intuitionistic reasoning) 4. Modal Logic (possibility, necessity, modal operators) 5. Temporal Logic (time, temporal reasoning) This outline provides a foundation for exploring various mathematical systems and frameworks. Remember, the key is to adapt and combine these systems to suit the specific problem or context, fostering a flexible and innovative approach to mathematics. Problem/Context | Mathematical System/Framework 1. Cryptography | Modular Arithmetic, Finite Fields 2. Quantum Mechanics | Linear Algebra, Vector Spaces, Non-Standard Analysis 3. Fractal Image Compression | Fractal Geometry, Self-Similarity 4. Optimization Problems | Linear Programming, Calculus, Optimization Techniques 5. Chaotic Systems | Dynamical Systems, Non-Linear Dynamics 6. Fuzzy Control Systems | Fuzzy Logic, Fuzzy Analysis 7. Network Topology | Graph Theory, Topology 8. Probability Theory | Measure Theory, Probability Spaces 9. Relativity | Differential Geometry, Non-Euclidean Geometries 10. Computer Science | Discrete Mathematics, Category Theory 11. Epidemiology | Dynamical Systems, Differential Equations 12. Materials Science | Solid-State Physics, Group Theory 13. Music Theory | Group Theory, Symmetry 14. Image Processing | Linear Algebra, Fourier Analysis 15. Time Series Analysis | Dynamical Systems, Fourier Analysis
The only thing sadder than T Howard’s endless nonsensical rants is the fact that I can’t stop clicking on videos mocking T Howard’s endless nonsensical rants.
@@HeriEystberg 1) Howard referred to carbon as bisexual. 2) bisexual people have statistically higher options for dating other people. 3) dating can refer to the method used to determine the age of certain substances. Carbon dating is one such radiometric method. 4) because the word "dating" can be used in both contexts, this qualifies as a pun; more specifically, a double entendre.
Prove you are smart . Answer this or sit down little tiny man. 1 real apple in your hands x 0 apples = 0 apples Tell me Einstein where did the real apple go ?! I can't wait for you to prove how intelligent you are.
Ok this is sad. He sounds exactly like my friend who is currently mentally ill and refuses to see a doctor. They both have grandiose ideas without having any background on the subject. They both mention how "special" they were and had profound thoughts as a child. They even segue into unrelated anecdotes when questioned about their ideas.
Illusions of grandeur is such a dead giveaway for severe mental illness. Highly narcissistic, no shame, over confident, fast talker, charming, snake oil salesman. Classic narcissist con man. 💀
Imagine having the privilege of getting a detailed and honest evaluation of a work by someone as busy and prominent as deGrasse Tyson and then turning a total blind eye to the opportunity to learn from his informed response. I would love getting that kind of feedback. I wish I had more of it in the things I do so that I can grow. Excellent work in your video and such a sad story for Howard. I’ve been avoiding other similar videos but I remembered liking how you broke down other topics so I decided to watch. It was worth my time. Thanks!
Being happy to be noticed by and have the chance to learn from someone would be the reaction of an individual who genuinely is invested in their theories, making them applicable and testing their reliability. Howard isn’t interested in any of that; he’s interested in appearing to be (or thinking he appears to be) the smartest person in the room.
Not sure thats how it works. He maybe wrong/incorrect about his understanding of the rules of multiplication but wouldn't class it as schizophrenia at all. He definitely has a point although it maybe down to his misunderstanding of the rules of established mathematics.
@@will4usProbably but in an interview he said "they" are turning his phone off and then when the presentation on the wall or screen turnd off he has an reaction.
You jest, but he literally believes that. At one point in his talk he rants about the conspiracy of bankers to lie about how math works and cheat him out of his rightful $1 x $1!
@@ramonserna8089 To his defense, his JRE has become something like the Tonight Show by David Letterman, back in the days when we got our entertainment from TV. And Dave never berated his guests, no matter how bonkers they were. (Hey remember when he would invite looney Scientologists on stage?)
We might be shitting on Joe a bit too much in this one. While he didn't push back against Terrence hard enough, he did invite him again on JRE to debate an actual mathematician. I don't think he was 100 percent convinced of what Terrence was saying, he probably just didn't know what to make of it all since Terrence love using complicated jargon to appear intelligent. Just an opinion.
I predicted that. Doesn't make me clever. It was obviously going to happen. Some with a sense of humor stayed. Some so incredulous that such a twat exists let alone gets invited to the Oxford Union.
Check out the faces of the students in that Oxford club, some are checking their phones to find emergency exits for the building, and the guy on stage is forever famous for his expression of "what the heck" or "do I need to shut it down"?
I'm always happy to see people that try to make bible references in their presentations say something stupid like this. No Christian would ever insult/blaspheme the Holiness of their LORD Jesus Christ by stating that He walked on water for tips.
20:00 Kudos on that random jargon generator bit! I was actually thinking "okay, that kinda sounds like something Terry would say, but I can tell it's randomly generated... It's too incoherent, even for him" And then you hit us with the reveal 😂 Well done sir, take your flowers, you just earned a follow! 20:00
Not really, he’s just very narcissistic and has a god complex. He probably doesn’t actually believe in most the shit he says, he’s catering to the conspiracy theory crowd in order to gain more followers
A psychopath is a person that lacks the capacity for human emotions like empathy. I think he’s more like a combination of a messiah complex and the Dunning-Krueger effect.
Well, to be fair, anyone who paid attention when he killed his career in the MCU as War Machine/Rhodey already knew he was a simpleton. So this isn’t news.
"1 x 1 = 2" "1 + 1 = 2" There, I fixed Terrance's math. Multiplication in math is not increasing anything, adding is increasing. Math is a descriptive language and multiplication is a way to describe something you already have by sorting it into equally sized groups and counting the number of groups to find out how many total things you have in all of the groups combined.
_"...adding is increasing..."_ Please, be careful! Terrence Howard might read this and dedicate a new book on how "1+0 = 10" and how hsi solved chess problems before he was conceived.
@@Groffili which is true if you lose the number datatype in the process. :D Damn you, program code! I wanted integers! Why did it convert my values to characters! >:v
@@magicmulder When you increase by a negative the sign becomes a minus sign and you are subtracting. You're attempting a semantics gotcha and you are failing because gotchas are inherently faulty reasoning since they don't change how something actually works and only serve to deceive and confuse people. 1 + (-1) = 0; 1 - 1 = 0. Those equations are identical. The same goes for adding 0, you are adding nothing therefore 1 + 0 = 1 is the same as saying 1 = 1. Just because you can express something with an addition sign doesn't mean you are actually adding anything.
I've taught 1st graders. By January, they all can easily show me that one set of one is one. Of course, they also know by then that an equation has an equal sign.
Its ironic that his e-book he claims disproves current math, actual disproves his theory. A PDF electronically printed on a computer by a program, both of which are totally dependent on 1*1 equaling 1 to operate. If 1*1 equaled 2, no digital device would work.
The sad part is that there exists a future where civilization everywhere is destroyed, and the only remaining piece of our existence is a physical copy of Terrence Howard's book.
The first I thought about when I was 5 years old, I was obsessed with bubbles, I was like; why does a bubble take the shape of a of a ball? Why not a square or triangle? And I would go and try and make square or triangular of bubbles. What Di Vinci tried to do at 80, I did it at 6 years old because... bla bla bla.
TFW you try to add “gave lecture at Harvard” to your resume by spewing math at an acting class and then get fact checked by the non-mathematicians in the room. 😂😂😂
Dude claims to be smarter than any scientist but doesn't grasp the grade school concept of multiplication or addition. Confused division and subtraction as well. Very sad that he has been so deluded for so long. 😮
Yes and what is even more sad is the ridiculous number of people that are following his insane and delusional “discoveries”. The education system has failed us. It’s worse than we know even now. This sort of thing will begin to become common and like the movie Idiocracy, everyone will become numb to this all around stupidity. This is what the education system looks like when if it could talk. It states nonsensical and idiotic nonsense as TH does here. It would be funny if it wasn’t our reality . The willfully stupid, idiotic, and ignorant people are more common now than ever. It will get worse and more common in years and decades to come. Hate to be the Debbie downer here, but this is what I see currently happening to or in society right now. It’s just a lot of mouth breathing, moronic wastes of space.
The problem isn't Terrence Howard. He's not the first crazy person with a messiah complex. The problem is Joe Rogan, who acts like Howard was a genius.
If the meaning of "multiply" were changed such that 1 multiplied by 1 equals 2, fundamentally altering the basic principles of arithmetic, it would have a profound impact on mathematics. Here are some key changes: 1. **Redefinition of Multiplication**: - The basic operation of multiplication would no longer be defined as repeated addition. - All multiplication involving 1 would produce different results, causing inconsistencies. 2. **Arithmetic Rules and Properties**: - The identity property of multiplication (any number multiplied by 1 equals itself) would no longer hold true. - Commutative property (a * b = b * a) and associative property ((a * b) * c = a * (b * c)) might be affected. 3. **Mathematical Consistency**: - Addition and multiplication would become inconsistent. For example, if 1 * 1 = 2, then how would 2 * 2 be defined? Would it be 4 or something else? 4. **Number Systems**: - The entire number system would be affected, including the definition and use of integers, rational numbers, and real numbers. 5. **Algebra**: - Algebraic expressions and equations would need to be redefined. Basic equations like x = y would become inconsistent. - Formulas used in algebra would need to be rewritten and could become unsolvable. 6. **Geometry**: - Area and volume calculations rely on multiplication. Redefining multiplication would change the fundamental properties of shapes and spaces. 7. **Calculus**: - Calculus, which relies heavily on the consistency of arithmetic operations, would be invalidated. Derivatives and integrals would need to be redefined. 8. **Applications in Science and Engineering**: - Physics, engineering, economics, and other fields that use mathematics would face significant issues. Formulas and models based on multiplication would no longer work correctly. To illustrate this with a few examples: - **Multiplication Table**: The table would look entirely different. For instance, if 1 * 1 = 2, then it’s unclear how 2 * 2 should be defined. If it’s also doubled, then 2 * 2 might equal 8, creating an exponential increase. - **Simple Equations**: Solving equations would become nonsensical. For instance, if 1 * 1 = 2, solving x * 1 = x would no longer hold true, as x would not be consistent. In summary, changing the fundamental definition of multiplication to mean that 1 * 1 equals 2 would disrupt the entire structure of mathematics and its applications. The logical consistency of arithmetic is foundational to all of mathematics, and altering these definitions would require a complete overhaul of mathematical principles.
2×2 dose equal 4 there's no way it would equal 8 even if the meaning was to have multiple of it it would be 2 multiplied by two if it's repeated addition that would be 4 but if it was the instance it be two two times making 4 the only error that comes out is 1 multiplied by one and 1 one times
I see your point. If we were to redefine multiplication such that "multiplying" implies counting instances rather than repeated addition, then: 1. **1 multiplied by 1 would be 2**: This redefinition would suggest that multiplying 1 by 1 means having two instances of 1. 2. **Other multiplications**: If the redefinition applies only to 1 multiplied by 1, then the rest of the multiplication table could theoretically remain unchanged. For instance: - 2 multiplied by 2 would still equal 4 (2 counted twice: 2 + 2). - 3 multiplied by 3 would still equal 9 (3 counted three times: 3 + 3 + 3). However, this change would introduce inconsistencies into the mathematical system. Let's explore the implications more specifically, keeping the main principles consistent except for the specific case of 1 multiplied by 1: ### New Multiplication Rules: 1. **1 multiplied by 1 equals 2**: Defined as having two instances of 1. 2. **All other multiplications follow repeated addition**: Traditional definition of multiplication for numbers other than 1. ### Implications: 1. **Identity Element Issue**: - In traditional multiplication, 1 is the identity element (any number multiplied by 1 remains unchanged). - Redefining 1 multiplied by 1 as 2 breaks this rule. The concept of an identity element would need to be reconsidered. 2. **Inconsistency with Addition**: - Traditional multiplication relies on repeated addition. Changing the meaning for 1 multiplied by 1 introduces a special case, making the system less elegant and consistent. 3. **Algebra**: - Simple algebraic equations would need special handling. For example: - In \(x \times 1 = x\), this rule wouldn't hold for \(x = 1\). - In solving equations, you'd need to remember the special case for 1. 4. **Geometry and Calculus**: - Calculations involving areas and volumes where 1 is a factor would need adjustments. - In calculus, the special handling of the number 1 would add complexity to differentiation and integration. ### Example with New Rules: - **2 multiplied by 2**: - If multiplication is still repeated addition for numbers other than 1: 2 + 2 = 4. - This stays consistent with the traditional definition. - **1 multiplied by 1**: - By the new definition, this is 2, since we consider it as having two instances of 1. ### Summary: If the new definition of "multiply" applies only to 1 multiplied by 1 and leaves other multiplications unchanged, it would result in a mathematical system with a special rule for 1. While this might avoid some inconsistencies, it would introduce complexity and make the system less intuitive and elegant. The primary reason multiplication is defined the way it is (as repeated addition) is to maintain consistency and simplicity across all numbers. Introducing exceptions to this rule would complicate the foundational principles of mathematics.
TBF Joe never claims to be an educational podcast even saying ppl are dumb if they get their info from him & they do often fact check things cos his audience will call them out on it if not, he doesn't push back if he doesn't know much about the subject at hand
Yep the vidoe creator here is unfairly treating Joe as if he is an official news media outlet or a university professor running a class. Joe wants his listeners to make their decisions. He specifically does not tell them what tot think
This is the same guy that couldn't poke a hole in the jussie smollett case, a case with more holes than a sponge. literally died on that hill! Great video mate, really enjoyed this one. his appearance at the oxford union was some nightmare level cringe.
This sounds just like Bam Margera and his Stromboli language that he “created.” We’ll likely never get Terrence to admit it, but this sounds like ramblings of a previous meth user.
Joe did not have the balls to stand up and say to Albert I mean Terrence that he is bat shit crazy but left it to his audience to sit there and stew in the bullshit for 2 or 3 hours, thanks Joe.
Joe effortlessly revealed the peculiarities of a certifiable nutbird. I know.. "There's enough junk science and conspiracy crap out there already, and it's dangerous". I agree.
Yes ☝️this. I foresee a bleak future ahead. I have a foreboding of a near future that contains more people like TH than intelligent people with critical thinking skills. I hate the direction we are headed in. And we are headed there, I wholeheartedly believe that…
This was a very amusing and witty video. Thank you for the compilation of “Terrance Nonsense” to create a complete picture of the shenanigans. (Do you have a discord, or any other way to contact you?)
6:29 you remeber that science and the church and art all used to be combined. For more years than it has existed without each other, many subjects were used to assist each other in understanding or even grasping the idea of what we may never get the answer to.
Terry's an unwell charlatan. But "crackhead"? "Keeps his mouth shut"? AND confusin' 2 of the most recognizable Black stars? All in the 1st few secs? Nah, I'm not feeling his tone or the suspect undertones here.
People used to listen to Joe Rogan because he used to bring great guests. Now, mostly idiots and conspiracy theorists go there, so there is nothing to understand. It's self-explanatory.
I stopped listening to JRE about a year ago because I found it just too frustrating, the way Joe props up characters like Alex Jones, Terrance Howard, Kanye West, and other mentally ill folks. He is so bias in favor of dark horses and nut jobs that often fails to offer sufficient push back despite having the knowledge and conversation skills to do so.
alex got fact checked at a 98% accuracy while on the JRE experience. Terrance Howards math might be too wild to gain credibility but the topics he talked about were very interesting. Kanye is a fucking genius regardless of his "compatibility" with society. You act like Einstein isn't classified as someone with Asperger's Syndrome alongside beethoven mozart and other famous and "credible" people.
@@bogusburritoit takes more than being mentally ill to be a genius (and i don't think asperger's even counts as an ilness). It's a shame that people don't understand how scientific discoveries work and as a result they cannot recognise gibberish.
Listening to Alex Jones on JRE is a guilty pleasure of mine. Its like listening to your crazy uncle talk at family gatherings after hes 7 drinks in and just has to share "the truth"
@@yeetusdeletus9 its hilarious and informative. Alex jones isn't a "great dude" but to call someone mentally ill to discredit people is a flaw society has and we've been slowing down our progress by not letting these people do their science.. If Terrence Howard said a bunch of bullshit but inspired a bunch of people to do the science to prove him wrong then hes done more for the science community than most people have... thats how true science works @thedovah349
Good show, but work on timing. Like it should've been "You want to see more of his book, well too bad....pause...because I'm going to tell you anyway". And you are working too hard to find a voice and it's coming off high pitched and a bit annoying, let your material work for your own voice.
The funny thing is even by Terrance's own logic 1×1 still equals 1. He says an action times an action equals a reaction. Ignoring that's not even what the 3rd law of motion is, he still says it equals "a" reaction so 1 reaction. He doesn't say an action times an action equals 2 reactions he says "a" reaction. He's dumb on so many levels.
I've been on Terrence for a while now, since way before rogan. Those comment sections used to be WAY more impressed on balance. You're the only person I've heard mention the Dewey decimal thing. I'm definitely glad you hit on that.
YES!! I'm waiting for someone to mention that Terrence said that he was able to do at 6 years old what Da Vince couldn't do at 80 when Da Vince only lived to 67....🤣🤣🤣 There's just too many blunders to get them all.
I understand the confusion. The word "multiply" indeed suggests an increase or repetition, which can be tricky when learning arithmetic concepts. Here’s a clearer breakdown: - **Multiply**: In mathematics, to multiply means to take one number and add it to itself a certain number of times based on another number. For example, 2 multiplied by 3 (2 x 3) means 2 added to itself three times (2 + 2 + 2), which equals 6. - **Multiplication Table** or **Times Table**: Both are names for the same table used in mathematics to show the results of multiplying pairs of numbers. For example, in the table: - 1 x 1 = 1 - 2 x 2 = 4 - 3 x 3 = 9 In everyday language, "multiplied" can imply more than one, but in mathematical terms, it specifically means the operation where you calculate the product of two numbers. The multiplication table or times table is a tool to help visualize and learn this process. So if you said, "My apple multiplied," mathematically it means you have more than one apple. The multiplication table is just a reference tool showing how numbers combine through multiplication, not just counting instances.
@2bundlesandapound963 he's just confused by the meaning of the word and the implications of the term multi,multiple,multiply and multiplication because if you think about 1×1 as multiplying by the words term should be multiple's of one and in the form of a times equation it's one 1 time counting the instance = 1 because it's 1 one time it only happened once so really it should only be times table not multiplication table because in the form of a multiplication you encounter a error with 1×1 that would mean one multiplied by 1 that's the only error and then past 1×1 2×2 in both meanings equates to 4 both in instance and in multiplying the number or doubling or duplicating its still 4
Basically, he thinks that multiplying is that thing Jesus did when he multiplied the loaves and fishes. It's a magical thing: first, you had one, and now you have many.
The entire section from 9:00 to 11:40 had me crying with laughter; tears streaming down my face! 😂Thanks for putting that together so well! Btw, I made a comment on another video (not your channel) about how I cannot wait for South Park to take a swing at this and Terrence responded to my comment. The guy is completely unhinged as if we didn't need anymore convincing. LOL!
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks astute viewers for pointing out a couple things I got wrong, which are now fixed in the video. Corrections are encouraged!
Yea that guy (terrance Howard ) who stands with and believes jussie Smolletts racist hoax
You forgot to tell your audience Terrance Howard stands with and believes jussie Smolletts racist hoax
Not one person has brought that up to him
Be sure to subscribe to keep up with all my latest mistakes 😁
And like me your scepticism forces your ignorance
Title: Flexible Mathematical Frameworks: A New Paradigm for Interdisciplinary Research
Abstract:
We propose a novel approach to mathematical modeling, incorporating flexible frameworks that adapt to complex systems and phenomena. This paradigm shift has far-reaching implications for interdisciplinary research, enabling innovative solutions and new insights in physics, engineering, economics, and more.
Introduction:
* Brief overview of traditional mathematical approaches and their limitations
* Motivation for flexible mathematical frameworks
* Thesis statement: Flexible mathematical frameworks offer a powerful tool for addressing complex problems across disciplines
Key Concepts:
* Modular arithmetic and finite fields
* Non-standard analysis and infinitesimals
* Fuzzy logic and fuzzy analysis
* Category theory and functors
Applications:
* Physics: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Chaos Theory
* Engineering: Signal Processing, Control Systems, and Materials Science
* Economics: Modeling Complex Systems and Uncertainty
Case Studies:
* Fractal image compression using fuzzy analysis
* Optimization problems solved with non-standard analysis
* Category theory in network topology
Discussion:
* Implications for interdisciplinary research and collaboration
* Potential challenges and open questions
* Future directions and areas of exploration
Conclusion:
* Recap of key points and contributions
* Call to action: Encouraging experts to explore and develop flexible mathematical frameworks
Appendix:
* Additional resources and references
* Mathematical derivations and proofs (as needed)
Here's a breakdown of when to use and remove 1 and 0 in various mathematical contexts:
Use 1 and 0:
1. Group Theory: 1 is the identity element for multiplication, and 0 is the identity element for addition.
2. Ring Theory: 1 and 0 serve as identity elements for multiplication and addition, respectively.
3. Calculus: 0 is crucial for defining limits, derivatives, and integrals.
4. Number Theory: 1 and 0 are essential for defining congruences, modular arithmetic, and Diophantine equations.
5. Linear Algebra: 1 and 0 are used as identity elements for matrix multiplication and addition.
Remove or modify 1 and 0:
1. Non-standard models of arithmetic: Modify or remove 1 and 0 to create alternative number systems, like fuzzy arithmetic or modular arithmetic.
2. Finite fields: Remove 0 and modify 1 to create finite fields with specific properties.
3. Quaternion and octonion algebras: Modify 1 and 0 to define these non-commutative algebraic structures.
4. Topological spaces: Remove 0 and 1 to define topological spaces with specific properties.
5. Fuzzy logic and probability theory: Modify 1 and 0 to represent degrees of truth and probability.
Context-dependent:
1. Category theory: 1 and 0 are used as identity morphisms, but their role depends on the specific category.
2. Type theory: 1 and 0 are used as identity elements, but their behavior depends on the specific type theory.
3. Computational complexity theory: 1 and 0 are used in binary representations, but their role depends on the specific problem.
Remember, these are general guidelines, and the specific context of a problem or theory may require a different approach. Mathematicians often adapt and generalize these rules to suit their needs, so it's essential to understand the underlying principles
With these modified mathematical rules, we can indeed build different structures and potentially lead to breakthroughs.
Space Travel:
* New propulsion methods: Alternative number systems could lead to novel ways of manipulating space-time, enabling more efficient and faster travel.
* Exotic matter and energy: Modified mathematical structures might help us understand and harness exotic matter and energy, facilitating advanced propulsion systems.
Monetary Systems:
* Alternative currency models: Non-standard arithmetic could lead to more equitable and sustainable monetary systems, addressing issues like inflation and wealth distribution.
* Cryptography and security: Modified mathematical structures can enhance cryptographic techniques, ensuring more secure financial transactions.
Other Potential Applications:
* Quantum Computing: Alternative mathematical structures might facilitate more efficient and powerful quantum computing architectures.
* Materials Science: New mathematical approaches could lead to the discovery of novel materials with unique properties.
* Biology and Medicine: Modified mathematical models might help us better understand complex biological systems, leading to breakthroughs in disease treatment and regenerative medicine.
By exploring and applying these modified mathematical rules, we can unlock innovative solutions and potentially revolutionize various fields. However, it's important to note that:
* These ideas are highly speculative and require rigorous research and testing.
* The development of practical applications will depend on the collaboration of experts from various fields.
* Ethical considerations must be taken into account when exploring and implementing these new mathematical structures
Flexible Mathematical Systems:
* Use 1 and 0: When working with standard arithmetic, calculus, and linear algebra in well-defined contexts.
* Modify or remove 1 and 0: When exploring alternative number systems, non-standard models, and specialized mathematical structures (e.g., finite fields, fuzzy arithmetic).
* Context-dependent approaches: Employ geometry, algebra, and analysis in a way that depends on the specific problem domain (e.g., Euclidean geometry for classical physics, non-Euclidean geometry for relativity).
* Adaptive number systems: Utilize modular arithmetic, finite fields, or other alternative number systems when tackling specific problems (e.g., cryptography, coding theory).
* Generalized algebraic structures: Leverage groups, rings, fields, and other algebraic structures to model diverse phenomena, adapting them as needed.
* Dynamic analytical frameworks: Switch between classical, fuzzy, intuitionistic, or other logics and analytical approaches based on the problem's requirements.
* Interdisciplinary connections: Combine mathematical frameworks with insights from physics, biology, economics, or other fields to foster innovative solutions.
* Embrace uncertainty and ambiguity:Acknowledge the limitations and ambiguities of mathematical representations and be willing to refine or revise them as new information arises.
By embracing these flexible mathematical systems, we can develop a more comprehensive and adaptive mathematical toolkit, enabling us to tackle complex challenges and uncover new insights across various disciplines.
Number Systems:
1. Standard Arithmetic (1 and 0 as identity elements)
2. Modular Arithmetic (clock arithmetic, finite fields)
3. Finite Fields (Galois fields, finite geometries)
4. Non-Standard Models (fuzzy arithmetic, intuitionistic arithmetic)
5. Alternative Number Systems (hyperreal numbers, surreal numbers)
Algebraic Structures:
1. Groups (symmetries, transformations)
2. Rings (integer arithmetic, polynomial rings)
3. Fields (rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers)
4. Vector Spaces (linear algebra, geometric algebra)
5. Lattices (order theory, lattice theory)
Geometric Frameworks:
1. Euclidean Geometry (classical geometry)
2. Non-Euclidean Geometries (hyperbolic, elliptical, parabolic)
3. Fractal Geometry (self-similarity, scaling)
4. Topology (point-set topology, algebraic topology)
5. Differential Geometry (curvature, manifolds)
Analytical Frameworks:
1. Classical Analysis (limits, derivatives, integrals)
2. Fuzzy Analysis (fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic)
3. Intuitionistic Analysis (constructive mathematics, intuitionistic logic)
4. Non-Standard Analysis (infinitesimals, hyperreal numbers)
5. Category Theory (functors, natural transformations)
Logical Systems:
1. Classical Logic (Boolean logic, propositional logic)
2. Fuzzy Logic (fuzzy sets, fuzzy reasoning)
3. Intuitionistic Logic (constructive logic, intuitionistic reasoning)
4. Modal Logic (possibility, necessity, modal operators)
5. Temporal Logic (time, temporal reasoning)
This outline provides a foundation for exploring various mathematical systems and frameworks. Remember, the key is to adapt and combine these systems to suit the specific problem or context, fostering a flexible and innovative approach to mathematics.
Problem/Context | Mathematical System/Framework
1. Cryptography | Modular Arithmetic, Finite Fields
2. Quantum Mechanics | Linear Algebra, Vector Spaces, Non-Standard Analysis
3. Fractal Image Compression | Fractal Geometry, Self-Similarity
4. Optimization Problems | Linear Programming, Calculus, Optimization Techniques
5. Chaotic Systems | Dynamical Systems, Non-Linear Dynamics
6. Fuzzy Control Systems | Fuzzy Logic, Fuzzy Analysis
7. Network Topology | Graph Theory, Topology
8. Probability Theory | Measure Theory, Probability Spaces
9. Relativity | Differential Geometry, Non-Euclidean Geometries
10. Computer Science | Discrete Mathematics, Category Theory
11. Epidemiology | Dynamical Systems, Differential Equations
12. Materials Science | Solid-State Physics, Group Theory
13. Music Theory | Group Theory, Symmetry
14. Image Processing | Linear Algebra, Fourier Analysis
15. Time Series Analysis | Dynamical Systems, Fourier Analysis
The only thing sadder than T Howard’s endless nonsensical rants is the fact that I can’t stop clicking on videos mocking T Howard’s endless nonsensical rants.
me too
Me too.
it's soo fascinating right??
It's like watching a car accident.
Multiply 1 T Howard rant by another T Howard rant and then divide it by the square branch of Queue and you get 2020.
I gotta share what someone on another channel commented: "Carbon is bisexual? That must be why it's so popular for dating"
🤣🤣🤣
I joked in middle school chemistry that carbon is the sluttiest element because it will bond with anything.
I don't get it 🤔
@@HeriEystberg
1) Howard referred to carbon as bisexual.
2) bisexual people have statistically higher options for dating other people.
3) dating can refer to the method used to determine the age of certain substances. Carbon dating is one such radiometric method.
4) because the word "dating" can be used in both contexts, this qualifies as a pun; more specifically, a double entendre.
@@Roob_the_Noob how did I not make that connection? That's a good one!
the problem with going crazy is that you don’t notice it while it happens to you
im not sure about that
what is he wrong about, can you explain?
@@s.muller8688 so 1*1=2?
so true, in fact it actually seems as if it's the people around you that have gone crazy.
Prove you are smart . Answer this or sit down little tiny man.
1 real apple in your hands x 0 apples = 0 apples
Tell me Einstein where did the real apple go ?!
I can't wait for you to prove how intelligent you are.
Ok this is sad. He sounds exactly like my friend who is currently mentally ill and refuses to see a doctor. They both have grandiose ideas without having any background on the subject. They both mention how "special" they were and had profound thoughts as a child. They even segue into unrelated anecdotes when questioned about their ideas.
This
Yeah, kinda seems like schizophrenia or something. Perhaps severe manic episodes if that's what's going on with Kanye.
Yes, he legit sounds mentally ill
Sounds exactly like all young earth creationists I know.
Its always "special science" that only they know and all the actual scientists missed.
Illusions of grandeur is such a dead giveaway for severe mental illness. Highly narcissistic, no shame, over confident, fast talker, charming, snake oil salesman. Classic narcissist con man. 💀
“Im a crackhead”
Alright folks there we have it. Let’s pack it up now.
Main character syndrome is a hell of a drug
So hunter
@@alexokin6819what?
@@FutureFoliageFF prikfars pf
@@alexokin6819 dhakdbsn jdnqb
@@alexokin6819shkfnab djejdb
I cringed so hard, I breached the w axis and became a 4th dimensional being.
I know how you feel!
I love this comment, kinda feel the same.
Hahaha
So sorry to hear that. I guess.
😂😂😂😂😂
Imagine having the privilege of getting a detailed and honest evaluation of a work by someone as busy and prominent as deGrasse Tyson and then turning a total blind eye to the opportunity to learn from his informed response. I would love getting that kind of feedback. I wish I had more of it in the things I do so that I can grow. Excellent work in your video and such a sad story for Howard.
I’ve been avoiding other similar videos but I remembered liking how you broke down other topics so I decided to watch. It was worth my time. Thanks!
Why would you want feedback from a woke piece of crap who sold science out
Eric Weinstein set him straight on a follow up Rogan show. Like Tyson, Weinstein was fairly kind to him trying to let him down easy.
Neil is a narcissist
Being happy to be noticed by and have the chance to learn from someone would be the reaction of an individual who genuinely is invested in their theories, making them applicable and testing their reliability. Howard isn’t interested in any of that; he’s interested in appearing to be (or thinking he appears to be) the smartest person in the room.
How is he not embarrassed! If he can fly, why not go to Mars with Elon?
If you look up the symptoms of schizophrenia, he ticks off MANY boxes.
Not sure thats how it works. He maybe wrong/incorrect about his understanding of the rules of multiplication but wouldn't class it as schizophrenia at all. He definitely has a point although it maybe down to his misunderstanding of the rules of established mathematics.
@@will4usProbably but in an interview he said "they" are turning his phone off and then when the presentation on the wall or screen turnd off he has an reaction.
@@Lugor96 Are we not being watched by big brother? lol One word, "Snowden"
@will4us we are in your walls
@@FutureFoliageFF Literally lol
As for his 93 patents - just delusion. He's got ZERO patents granted. He applied for some, and in his mind, that's the same thing.
He actually said 97 on rogan. He's very delusional.
Have you looked it up? Patent record is public.
@@will4us yeah I found 6 patents, mostly fruit machine based.
@@TheMonkeydood Cool. No RV/VR patent?
@@will4us nope, just an abandoned patent application in 2010. And of course vr/ar have been around 40 years.
His Oxford Union speech is absolutely brutal...yikes.
I barely survived
I haven’t cringed that much in decades. “The dewey decimal system”!!!!!!!!!
He should stick to Joe Rogan. He'll fall for anything.
He has the confidence of a true Dunning-Kruger effect.
He has the Dumb-and-Dumber effect!!!
Add some schizophrenia to the mix.....
Honestly, with how insane this has gotten, I think they should rename it the Terrence Howard effect
@@g-mony767 google tangental flight corp, the lynchpin corp. go deep from there
He is pure materialization of Dunning-Kruger effect.
Terrance is clearly another victim of BIG MATH.
Big bad math!
You jest, but he literally believes that. At one point in his talk he rants about the conspiracy of bankers to lie about how math works and cheat him out of his rightful $1 x $1!
@@ThinkThisThroughChannel Eddie Murphy?
More like METH
1 make math. 2 fill in blank. 3 profit.
He's smarter than Einstein. He's Zweistein.
That is the count of working brain cells in his medial frontal cortex and and the medial posterior parietal cortex (where self-knowledge is situated).
Joke is underrated
🥳
He is Einstein squared
So, he's 1x1stein
@@urracojalpa4481 gotta keep the unit
He is one square stein^2.
Man if I hear Wave conjugation one more time I'm gonna bust
I had it as bad echo for a few hours dammmmm almost burst
Like this? ----> 🍆 💦
What if i put it this way? The bisexual tones of super symmetry is wave conjugation. Any better?
@@piggypooono. I want to throw up…
@@piggypooolol that was good
No, ... See, what happened was Joe Rogan kept his mind SO open that his brains fell out....
Actually that’s not true what really happened was that his mind was so open you could see inside there was nothing in there to fall out.
In my opinion, he left his brain outside the box a long time ago and hasn't been able to find it since.
Joe used to at least pushback, now he just rolls with the flow.
@@ramonserna8089 To his defense, his JRE has become something like the Tonight Show by David Letterman, back in the days when we got our entertainment from TV. And Dave never berated his guests, no matter how bonkers they were. (Hey remember when he would invite looney Scientologists on stage?)
We might be shitting on Joe a bit too much in this one. While he didn't push back against Terrence hard enough, he did invite him again on JRE to debate an actual mathematician. I don't think he was 100 percent convinced of what Terrence was saying, he probably just didn't know what to make of it all since Terrence love using complicated jargon to appear intelligent. Just an opinion.
The best was when the Oxford students start walking out of his presentation.
I predicted that. Doesn't make me clever. It was obviously going to happen. Some with a sense of humor stayed. Some so incredulous that such a twat exists let alone gets invited to the Oxford Union.
Right, and most of them were fine art students, who did math till about ninth grade
@@zeven341 and yet they are smarter than him 🤷♂️
Anyone who doesn't know higher mathematics is not intelligent? 😂😂
@@nilavakar8068 Intellect has nothing to do with it, its basic education.
People that wear hoods during interviews like Terrance, Bam Margera, Kanye...
Red Flag.
Don't judge the book by its hoodie.
Elliot Alderson is one of the smartest people of our generation and exclusively wears a black hoodie
@Josh-hn5rc Elliot Alderson? The fictional character from a TV show? Are you comparing real people to made up people now?
When you didn't include David Duke, you lost all credibility.
@@InteractiveIdea it’s a documentary
Check out the faces of the students in that Oxford club, some are checking their phones to find emergency exits for the building, and the guy on stage is forever famous for his expression of "what the heck" or "do I need to shut it down"?
When fake it till you make it goes horribly wrong
The quantum dog ate his quantum homework🤣🤣
"Did I mention the thing about walking on water for tips yet?
So anyway the flower of life conjugations"
I'm always happy to see people that try to make bible references in their presentations say something stupid like this. No Christian would ever insult/blaspheme the Holiness of their LORD Jesus Christ by stating that He walked on water for tips.
20:00 Kudos on that random jargon generator bit! I was actually thinking "okay, that kinda sounds like something Terry would say, but I can tell it's randomly generated... It's too incoherent, even for him" And then you hit us with the reveal 😂 Well done sir, take your flowers, you just earned a follow! 20:00
1x1=5. Now, I deserve an interview on JRE, where Lazy Intellectualism rules the day.
So well said!
You're wrong! 1x1=4! JRE I'll be right there buddy ole pal
Using both of you guy's equations, and a generous helping of marijuana, I stumbled across a Mathematical truth of my own.
2x1 > 2.
@shadegreen5351 very interesting. Is that 2x1 a conjugation of bisexual tones that allows it to be > than super symmetry of 2?
He's a psychopath. Full stop.
Not really, he’s just very narcissistic and has a god complex. He probably doesn’t actually believe in most the shit he says, he’s catering to the conspiracy theory crowd in order to gain more followers
A psychopath is a person that lacks the capacity for human emotions like empathy. I think he’s more like a combination of a messiah complex and the Dunning-Krueger effect.
The more you listen to Terrence, the more he reveals himself to be a total simpleton who can say big words.
He can barely say big words.. "molecularly" is a big word, its just wrong.
Well, to be fair, anyone who paid attention when he killed his career in the MCU as War Machine/Rhodey already knew he was a simpleton. So this isn’t news.
Money can buy you a lot, including an education, but it cant buy you intelligence, diligence, or integrity.
Think of the experience those Oxford Union students who had a few beers and lit one up before Terrence's talk. Their brains must have been addled.
This is the fault of TikTok. Its made everyone think they’re a genius
There was no tiktok when Howard flew over the cuckoo's nest. It didn't exist.
"1 x 1 = 2"
"1 + 1 = 2" There, I fixed Terrance's math. Multiplication in math is not increasing anything, adding is increasing. Math is a descriptive language and multiplication is a way to describe something you already have by sorting it into equally sized groups and counting the number of groups to find out how many total things you have in all of the groups combined.
_"...adding is increasing..."_
Please, be careful! Terrence Howard might read this and dedicate a new book on how "1+0 = 10" and how hsi solved chess problems before he was conceived.
@@Groffili lol, then I'll have to explain that "1 + 0 = 10" is concatenation and is expressed as "(1 || 0) = 10"
@@Groffili which is true if you lose the number datatype in the process. :D
Damn you, program code! I wanted integers! Why did it convert my values to characters! >:v
Adding is not always increasing, 1+(-1) = 0, 1+0 = 1.
You’re just repeating his mistake. 😂
@@magicmulder When you increase by a negative the sign becomes a minus sign and you are subtracting. You're attempting a semantics gotcha and you are failing because gotchas are inherently faulty reasoning since they don't change how something actually works and only serve to deceive and confuse people. 1 + (-1) = 0; 1 - 1 = 0. Those equations are identical. The same goes for adding 0, you are adding nothing therefore 1 + 0 = 1 is the same as saying 1 = 1. Just because you can express something with an addition sign doesn't mean you are actually adding anything.
This is his best work yet. Whoever is writing for him is a genius.
Thank god he didn't use his knowledge to destroy mankind instead he used it to make us all laugh.
You meant "die laughing". This is insanity and lies
He's like a kid who heard their parents use some big words and then just spurts them out not even knowing what they mean just to sound clever.
@iitzfizz Google tangental flight corp, the lynchpin contest and go deep from there. real deep.
When you eat bad shrooms on the way down from a bad mescaline trip trying to recover from being awake for 6 days on meth.
Yep… Sounds about right
And crack
Been there, done that...
His PDFs look like how they teach math to 1st graders.
I've taught 1st graders. By January, they all can easily show me that one set of one is one. Of course, they also know by then that an equation has an equal sign.
This is a criminally under subscribed channel. Great work, sir.
There used to be only ego lifting, now there is ego scienceing ... congratulations world.
I hate all of it. Name it what you will, but it all sucks.
Its ironic that his e-book he claims disproves current math, actual disproves his theory. A PDF electronically printed on a computer by a program, both of which are totally dependent on 1*1 equaling 1 to operate. If 1*1 equaled 2, no digital device would work.
The sad part is that there exists a future where civilization everywhere is destroyed, and the only remaining piece of our existence is a physical copy of Terrence Howard's book.
Terrence will finally get his recognition as his book would be the new age Bible.
Terrance ism
Then some idealist will challenge the math with some radical "1X1=1". Then they will all laugh and call him a fool.
The first I thought about when I was 5 years old, I was obsessed with bubbles, I was like;
why does a bubble take the shape of a of a ball? Why not a square or triangle?
And I would go and try and make square or triangular of bubbles.
What Di Vinci tried to do at 80, I did it at 6 years old because... bla bla bla.
I think he was getting punched by Martin Lawrence
yeah I was thinking the same thing
Snap
That's just what they want you to believe...
Thanks. Added to corrections.
Molecularly is not a word. He keeps saying it. To people at Oxford.
He just makes stuff up. Lies about patents, etc
@@anthonymorris4211 google tangental flight corp, the lynchpin contest. Go deep from there
The home of the Oxford English Dictionary no less!
He said hes a geomitrist. Is that a word? Someone who likes geometry.
TFW you try to add “gave lecture at Harvard” to your resume by spewing math at an acting class and then get fact checked by the non-mathematicians in the room. 😂😂😂
Look Up In the DSM-IV For Mental Retardation Or Undifferentiated Schizophrenia.
NOOOOOOOOO did you just call Martian Lawrence Eddie Murphy 😂😂😂😭😭😭
Thanks. Added to corrections.
@@ThinkThisThroughChannel anytime great video by the way you gained another subscribers
Well, you just called him "Martian" Lawrence
Perfect example of dunning Krugar effect.
Where can I find this masterpiece of scientific literature? Please, share a link; it's a must read!
Happy reading! tcotlc.com/
@@ThinkThisThroughChannel thanks! I'm already laughing!
Dude claims to be smarter than any scientist but doesn't grasp the grade school concept of multiplication or addition. Confused division and subtraction as well. Very sad that he has been so deluded for so long. 😮
Yes and what is even more sad is the ridiculous number of people that are following his insane and delusional “discoveries”. The education system has failed us. It’s worse than we know even now. This sort of thing will begin to become common and like the movie Idiocracy, everyone will become numb to this all around stupidity. This is what the education system looks like when if it could talk. It states nonsensical and idiotic nonsense as TH does here. It would be funny if it wasn’t our reality . The willfully stupid, idiotic, and ignorant people are more common now than ever. It will get worse and more common in years and decades to come. Hate to be the Debbie downer here, but this is what I see currently happening to or in society right now. It’s just a lot of mouth breathing, moronic wastes of space.
The problem isn't Terrence Howard. He's not the first crazy person with a messiah complex.
The problem is Joe Rogan, who acts like Howard was a genius.
Yes. Shame on Rogan.
Right it’s not the guy actually making the claims 🤦🏿
Does anyone else wonder if this is just a really elaborate piece of performance art that we've not caught onto yet?
It is. He admitted he has no flight patents and that 1x1=1. The Dewey Decimal thing is no act though. Pure Idiocy.
If the meaning of "multiply" were changed such that 1 multiplied by 1 equals 2, fundamentally altering the basic principles of arithmetic, it would have a profound impact on mathematics. Here are some key changes:
1. **Redefinition of Multiplication**:
- The basic operation of multiplication would no longer be defined as repeated addition.
- All multiplication involving 1 would produce different results, causing inconsistencies.
2. **Arithmetic Rules and Properties**:
- The identity property of multiplication (any number multiplied by 1 equals itself) would no longer hold true.
- Commutative property (a * b = b * a) and associative property ((a * b) * c = a * (b * c)) might be affected.
3. **Mathematical Consistency**:
- Addition and multiplication would become inconsistent. For example, if 1 * 1 = 2, then how would 2 * 2 be defined? Would it be 4 or something else?
4. **Number Systems**:
- The entire number system would be affected, including the definition and use of integers, rational numbers, and real numbers.
5. **Algebra**:
- Algebraic expressions and equations would need to be redefined. Basic equations like x = y would become inconsistent.
- Formulas used in algebra would need to be rewritten and could become unsolvable.
6. **Geometry**:
- Area and volume calculations rely on multiplication. Redefining multiplication would change the fundamental properties of shapes and spaces.
7. **Calculus**:
- Calculus, which relies heavily on the consistency of arithmetic operations, would be invalidated. Derivatives and integrals would need to be redefined.
8. **Applications in Science and Engineering**:
- Physics, engineering, economics, and other fields that use mathematics would face significant issues. Formulas and models based on multiplication would no longer work correctly.
To illustrate this with a few examples:
- **Multiplication Table**: The table would look entirely different. For instance, if 1 * 1 = 2, then it’s unclear how 2 * 2 should be defined. If it’s also doubled, then 2 * 2 might equal 8, creating an exponential increase.
- **Simple Equations**: Solving equations would become nonsensical. For instance, if 1 * 1 = 2, solving x * 1 = x would no longer hold true, as x would not be consistent.
In summary, changing the fundamental definition of multiplication to mean that 1 * 1 equals 2 would disrupt the entire structure of mathematics and its applications. The logical consistency of arithmetic is foundational to all of mathematics, and altering these definitions would require a complete overhaul of mathematical principles.
2×2 dose equal 4 there's no way it would equal 8 even if the meaning was to have multiple of it it would be 2 multiplied by two if it's repeated addition that would be 4 but if it was the instance it be two two times making 4 the only error that comes out is 1 multiplied by one and 1 one times
I see your point. If we were to redefine multiplication such that "multiplying" implies counting instances rather than repeated addition, then:
1. **1 multiplied by 1 would be 2**: This redefinition would suggest that multiplying 1 by 1 means having two instances of 1.
2. **Other multiplications**: If the redefinition applies only to 1 multiplied by 1, then the rest of the multiplication table could theoretically remain unchanged. For instance:
- 2 multiplied by 2 would still equal 4 (2 counted twice: 2 + 2).
- 3 multiplied by 3 would still equal 9 (3 counted three times: 3 + 3 + 3).
However, this change would introduce inconsistencies into the mathematical system. Let's explore the implications more specifically, keeping the main principles consistent except for the specific case of 1 multiplied by 1:
### New Multiplication Rules:
1. **1 multiplied by 1 equals 2**: Defined as having two instances of 1.
2. **All other multiplications follow repeated addition**: Traditional definition of multiplication for numbers other than 1.
### Implications:
1. **Identity Element Issue**:
- In traditional multiplication, 1 is the identity element (any number multiplied by 1 remains unchanged).
- Redefining 1 multiplied by 1 as 2 breaks this rule. The concept of an identity element would need to be reconsidered.
2. **Inconsistency with Addition**:
- Traditional multiplication relies on repeated addition. Changing the meaning for 1 multiplied by 1 introduces a special case, making the system less elegant and consistent.
3. **Algebra**:
- Simple algebraic equations would need special handling. For example:
- In \(x \times 1 = x\), this rule wouldn't hold for \(x = 1\).
- In solving equations, you'd need to remember the special case for 1.
4. **Geometry and Calculus**:
- Calculations involving areas and volumes where 1 is a factor would need adjustments.
- In calculus, the special handling of the number 1 would add complexity to differentiation and integration.
### Example with New Rules:
- **2 multiplied by 2**:
- If multiplication is still repeated addition for numbers other than 1: 2 + 2 = 4.
- This stays consistent with the traditional definition.
- **1 multiplied by 1**:
- By the new definition, this is 2, since we consider it as having two instances of 1.
### Summary:
If the new definition of "multiply" applies only to 1 multiplied by 1 and leaves other multiplications unchanged, it would result in a mathematical system with a special rule for 1. While this might avoid some inconsistencies, it would introduce complexity and make the system less intuitive and elegant.
The primary reason multiplication is defined the way it is (as repeated addition) is to maintain consistency and simplicity across all numbers. Introducing exceptions to this rule would complicate the foundational principles of mathematics.
Ur so underrated man
I LOVE the Dewey decimal thing 😂😂
Oh then you definitely want to watch the sequel to this video... It gets better.
@@ThinkThisThroughChannel😂
Holy shit! How do you not have more subs? You’re good…
Why was he invited to Oxford in the first place? lmao
@Bokaj01 google tangental flight corp, the lynchpin contest and go deep from there
Coz they still racist
When you hate math so much that you want to make your own ..
I wish I would've thought of that in school
Terrence doesn't know the difference between treaty and treatise.
Did he actually say the word treaty? I missed it! The accidental comedy just never ends with this guy.
He often over-associates
Old mate is mad as a bag of cats
That’s insulting to cats. And bags.
@@magicmulder do you have a funnier and less harmful analogy my friend?
@@danieladomeit9696 He's as hemisphere as a washboard of syzygy?
@@DaisyAjay makes about as much sense as Terry does
Dude is on par with the moon in terms of lunacy
He's an actor. This has to be a performance.
That's a huge part of it. An actor sells a lie in every role he plays.
TBF Joe never claims to be an educational podcast even saying ppl are dumb if they get their info from him & they do often fact check things cos his audience will call them out on it if not, he doesn't push back if he doesn't know much about the subject at hand
Yep the vidoe creator here is unfairly treating Joe as if he is an official news media outlet or a university professor running a class. Joe wants his listeners to make their decisions. He specifically does not tell them what tot think
This is the same guy that couldn't poke a hole in the jussie smollett case, a case with more holes than a sponge. literally died on that hill! Great video mate, really enjoyed this one. his appearance at the oxford union was some nightmare level cringe.
One things for sure, if Terrence Howard opens a bank, I'm opening an account.
That was actually Martin Lawrence... not Eddie Murphy...
It bothered me too.
Lets cancel him
No it was indeed Ed Murphy.
Thanks, added to corrections.
Got yourself a new sub buddy. Great work.
My 8 year old disproved this. One ones are one, which means one one dollar is one dollar. Case closed
Cancer is FAR too complex for a person like terrance to "cure" it
He's becoming "Jesus Christ himself". He will proclaim his godhood sooner or later.
ITV: Person confirms to smoke rocks, then continues to say pretty much what you expect.
“The dewey decimal system”. Wtf????!!!!!!!!!
He's definitely no librarian.
😂
This sounds just like Bam Margera and his Stromboli language that he “created.” We’ll likely never get Terrence to admit it, but this sounds like ramblings of a previous meth user.
The sarcasm in this is hilarious 😂 lowest form of wit my arse
This is what happens when you start taking meth instead of math
🤣
Meth amongst many, many other substances. Then has been awake for multiple days in a row
😂😂
He refuses to learn arithmetic.... Yet considers himself a god-like being.
WTF....
“I might get shot for talking about this”…😂
I think that part may be actually true...
Joe did not have the balls to stand up and say to Albert I mean Terrence that he is bat shit crazy but left it to his audience to sit there and stew in the bullshit for 2 or 3 hours, thanks Joe.
Joe effortlessly revealed the peculiarities of a certifiable nutbird. I know.. "There's enough junk science and conspiracy crap out there already, and it's dangerous". I agree.
You can tell our culture is in a low point when the clowns get rating and the educated are pushed back
Yes ☝️this. I foresee a bleak future ahead. I have a foreboding of a near future that contains more people like TH than intelligent people with critical thinking skills. I hate the direction we are headed in. And we are headed there, I wholeheartedly believe that…
This was a very amusing and witty video. Thank you for the compilation of “Terrance Nonsense” to create a complete picture of the shenanigans.
(Do you have a discord, or any other way to contact you?)
I'm beginning to think this actor/model might be a narcissist. That would be a first.
6:29 you remeber that science and the church and art all used to be combined. For more years than it has existed without each other, many subjects were used to assist each other in understanding or even grasping the idea of what we may never get the answer to.
the man punching terrence in the beginning is Martin Lawrence. Not Eddie Murphy
Well that changes everything
Terry's an unwell charlatan. But "crackhead"? "Keeps his mouth shut"? AND confusin' 2 of the most recognizable Black stars? All in the 1st few secs? Nah, I'm not feeling his tone or the suspect undertones here.
Came to comment exactly the same thing lol 😆 hard to mix up Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy
A lot of people are getting this wrong. Yes that is Mr Murphy. Move on.
Thanks, added to corrections.
Isn't this the guy who had the movie with his hit song whoop that trick? Yo why you throw my tape in the toilet?
I guess you got your answer.
People used to listen to Joe Rogan because he used to bring great guests. Now, mostly idiots and conspiracy theorists go there, so there is nothing to understand. It's self-explanatory.
Those idiots have a great following, that's why
I thought conjugations were for verbs.
I stopped listening to JRE about a year ago because I found it just too frustrating, the way Joe props up characters like Alex Jones, Terrance Howard, Kanye West, and other mentally ill folks. He is so bias in favor of dark horses and nut jobs that often fails to offer sufficient push back despite having the knowledge and conversation skills to do so.
alex got fact checked at a 98% accuracy while on the JRE experience. Terrance Howards math might be too wild to gain credibility but the topics he talked about were very interesting. Kanye is a fucking genius regardless of his "compatibility" with society. You act like Einstein isn't classified as someone with Asperger's Syndrome alongside beethoven mozart and other famous and "credible" people.
@@bogusburritoit takes more than being mentally ill to be a genius (and i don't think asperger's even counts as an ilness).
It's a shame that people don't understand how scientific discoveries work and as a result they cannot recognise gibberish.
@@bogusburrito
And then the JRE audience elects a "98% checked" mentally ill stable genius as their president.
Listening to Alex Jones on JRE is a guilty pleasure of mine. Its like listening to your crazy uncle talk at family gatherings after hes 7 drinks in and just has to share "the truth"
@@yeetusdeletus9 its hilarious and informative. Alex jones isn't a "great dude" but to call someone mentally ill to discredit people is a flaw society has and we've been slowing down our progress by not letting these people do their science..
If Terrence Howard said a bunch of bullshit but inspired a bunch of people to do the science to prove him wrong then hes done more for the science community than most people have... thats how true science works @thedovah349
Conjugationzz, bisexual tones, super symmetry..ohh my.
i genuinely thought that was random generated based off the prompt wave conjugations 🤣
He is bragging about a 1.6 grade point average to Oxford students. This speech sounds like an SNL skit that went on too long.
0 is 1... 1 is 2... 2 is 3etc
Good show, but work on timing. Like it should've been "You want to see more of his book, well too bad....pause...because I'm going to tell you anyway". And you are working too hard to find a voice and it's coming off high pitched and a bit annoying, let your material work for your own voice.
This channel has all the makings of becoming really big. Great name, entertaining, informative and well produced. Keep at it!
The funny thing is even by Terrance's own logic 1×1 still equals 1. He says an action times an action equals a reaction. Ignoring that's not even what the 3rd law of motion is, he still says it equals "a" reaction so 1 reaction. He doesn't say an action times an action equals 2 reactions he says "a" reaction. He's dumb on so many levels.
Good point!!!
Dewey decimal system lol! Brilliant!
I've been on Terrence for a while now, since way before rogan. Those comment sections used to be WAY more impressed on balance. You're the only person I've heard mention the Dewey decimal thing. I'm definitely glad you hit on that.
YES!! I'm waiting for someone to mention that Terrence said that he was able to do at 6 years old what Da Vince couldn't do at 80 when Da Vince only lived to 67....🤣🤣🤣 There's just too many blunders to get them all.
Science says gravity exist.... But Terrance has a balloon😂😂😂😂😂😂
I understand the confusion. The word "multiply" indeed suggests an increase or repetition, which can be tricky when learning arithmetic concepts.
Here’s a clearer breakdown:
- **Multiply**: In mathematics, to multiply means to take one number and add it to itself a certain number of times based on another number. For example, 2 multiplied by 3 (2 x 3) means 2 added to itself three times (2 + 2 + 2), which equals 6.
- **Multiplication Table** or **Times Table**: Both are names for the same table used in mathematics to show the results of multiplying pairs of numbers. For example, in the table:
- 1 x 1 = 1
- 2 x 2 = 4
- 3 x 3 = 9
In everyday language, "multiplied" can imply more than one, but in mathematical terms, it specifically means the operation where you calculate the product of two numbers. The multiplication table or times table is a tool to help visualize and learn this process.
So if you said, "My apple multiplied," mathematically it means you have more than one apple. The multiplication table is just a reference tool showing how numbers combine through multiplication, not just counting instances.
So Terrence’s issue is samantics..
Exactly, he thinks multiplication = duplication
That's why he can't understand (rather avoid) anything between 0 and 1.
@@2bundlesandapound96399% of pseudoscience is semantics, never actual calculations.
@2bundlesandapound963 he's just confused by the meaning of the word and the implications of the term multi,multiple,multiply and multiplication because if you think about 1×1 as multiplying by the words term should be multiple's of one and in the form of a times equation it's one 1 time counting the instance = 1 because it's 1 one time it only happened once so really it should only be times table not multiplication table because in the form of a multiplication you encounter a error with 1×1 that would mean one multiplied by 1 that's the only error and then past 1×1 2×2 in both meanings equates to 4 both in instance and in multiplying the number or doubling or duplicating its still 4
Basically, he thinks that multiplying is that thing Jesus did when he multiplied the loaves and fishes. It's a magical thing: first, you had one, and now you have many.
"I am not saying I am crazy"
Leave that to the experts.
He opens the flowers properly so he can roll it easily and smoke it.
The entire section from 9:00 to 11:40 had me crying with laughter; tears streaming down my face! 😂Thanks for putting that together so well! Btw, I made a comment on another video (not your channel) about how I cannot wait for South Park to take a swing at this and Terrence responded to my comment. The guy is completely unhinged as if we didn't need anymore convincing. LOL!
The actual Terry replied to you! What did he say??
only 8 minutes in, your editing is wonderful your commentary is great. You sir will have well over 2k subs soon.
Thanks I appreciate that!
This channel is great