this is what happens, this is how it starts
you say a man is a woman and suddenly the moon landings are fake and the earth is flat, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria
I choose to believe the moon landings were real because if they weren't then we are doomed as a species
dooooooooooooooomed
And all this means frick all
7 months ago
Anonymous
Yea, its just like with Everest once one person makes it to the top, there is no reason for anyone to want to go back for the next 100 years since its just dead space and someone already went there first, so no real reason to go back.
7 months ago
Anonymous
It doesn't cost hundreds of billions to get to the top of Everest. If it did nobody who didn't have a commercial interest would want to go. The only real interest in the moon given the expense of the trip and some habitation there is to venture further, something we weren't really ready yet. But it sucks it got moved away from.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Apollo only cost 25.8 billion with 1960s level technology and that was for seven trips to the moon. The moon has plenty of commercial interests and mining potential given a gram of moon rock is worth $50k.
7 months ago
Anonymous
As hard as it is to argue with trips, that is $244 billion now >mining potential
It doesn't have anything that atm isn't far cheaper to mine here >a gram of moon rock is worth $50k.
Because there were only 7 trips to the moon.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>that is $244 billion now
We have massively cheaper technology and production capabilities now now, if you were using your logic to figure out the cost of a computer, you would have to consider the IBM 1401 was sold for nearly $400K in 1961 and assume a computer today would cost the average consumer $2.5M instead of a couple hundred.
>It doesn't have anything that atm isn't far cheaper to mine here
Except you can't mine moon rocks and sell them for $50k/gram.
>Because there were only 7 trips to the moon.
Sure, but if you sold shares ahead of time for individual investors to get whatever you could bring back, the program could pay for itself based on speculation on moon rocks alone because of how limited the supply is.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>We have massively cheaper technology and production capabilities now
And also massively cheaper quality products, to a degree, many of those ancient systems still work >funding a moon base based on moon rocks
Really not getting this "rarity value" thing, it's already a purely novelty substance, would burn out faster than NFTs
7 months ago
Anonymous
>many of those ancient systems still work
No they don't, NASA has repeatedly said they would have to reinvent the wheel to return to the moon.
>it's already a purely novelty substance
Worth $50k/gram.
>would burn out faster than NFTs
That is why you would fund the missions first based on speculation which is exactly what you are doing about the value burning out since nobody actually went back to the moon, but people have spent billions of dollars developing NFTs and NFT marketplaces, probably enough to pay for a trip to the moon with nothing real to show for it except pixels on a screen.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>NASA has repeatedly said they would have to reinvent the wheel to return to the moon.
Lol, because Apollo era NASA was a national corporation that employed tens of thousands, full of experts, whose sole purpose was getting to the moon, of course that stopped existing the second the funding for it dried up, despite the fact that it was like 60 years ago so few who were around then for it still are, it's not just about the computers they used at all, given the complexity of the task and the computer limitations of the time they did very little compared to the human expertise >you would fund the missions first based on speculation
Musk would have already tried this route if it would have worked for a one off I'm sure >people have spent billions of dollars developing NFTs and NFT marketplaces, probably enough to pay for a trip to the moon with nothing real to show for it except pixels on a screen.
I can't argue with the pointlessness, we also give a ton of money to Ukraine and Israel
7 months ago
Anonymous
>many of those ancient systems still work >stopped existing the second the funding for it dried up
Make up your mind.
>Musk would have already tried this route
No, he doesn't need to appeal to commercial investors, he has been scamming entire governments who demand much less return, but he has definitely discussed going to the moon and eventually mars if government income ever dries up.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>can't tell the difference between a computer and a space program
My dad is not a cell phone
7 months ago
Anonymous
Those computers were purpose designed, so if there is no hardware and there is no infrastructure for them to connect to, how exactly do they "work"?
Sorry I didn't realize your dad was the Apollo Space Program.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>stopped existing the second the funding for it dried up
The computers can't get to the moon on their own, frendo, they require an entire corporation running them that no longer exists as it did, which it what I was speaking to ceasing existence from lack of continued funding.
7 months ago
Anonymous
we can't go to the moon because there aren't enough black wombyn in stem any more
7 months ago
Anonymous
We only got there in the first place because we absorbed a bunch of Nazi scientists to work with the black womyn
7 months ago
Anonymous
The old computers will never go to the moon, they don't work like that any more, nasa has repeatedly said they will have to reinvent the wheel to return to the moon and when they do, each computer will not cost $2.5M, so you your attempt to project costs based on the fact that old IBMs cost half a million a pop just doesn't work.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>your attempt to project costs based on the fact that old IBMs cost half a million a pop just doesn't work.
Lol that was never anything but a minor point that almost no computer made now is still going to be working in 60 years, not saying they would be using the same computers, frendo
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Lol that was never anything but a minor point that almost no computer made now is still going to be working in 60 years
Moot point since it didn't take 60 years for the Apollo program to reach the moon seven times, it would still be massively cheaper to do the computer calculations and controls today than in the 1960s, so you projections based entirely on the cost of computing in 1960s are all flawed.
7 months ago
Anonymous
You're so stupid it's mind boggling are you fricking Terence Howard
7 months ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession, you can't make your point and have to resort to personal attacks because your logic regarding projecting computing costs is so pants on head moronic.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Yep, so stupid he doesn't even know who he's talking to, kek
Moron
That other guy made you look like a moron lol
7 months ago
Anonymous
>based entirely on the cost of computing in 1960s
Who said they were, I didn't
You'll notice half a million is not 25 billion
No, you are still the moron who thinks each computer in a new space program would cost $5M dollars today because of how much they cost in 1960.
Wrong guy
7 months ago
Anonymous
>You'll notice half a million is not 25 billion
Yea because they didn't use only one computer, half a million was the cost of a single IBM mainframe in 1960 with each terminal costing tens of thousands when today you can get much more powerful mainframes for a couple of thousand and terminals for a couple hundred.
7 months ago
Anonymous
How exactly did the cost of the computers become the main driving focus of the discussion, cause I didn't take it there
7 months ago
Anonymous
An autist got hung up on being caught on a simple mistake, very typical Cinemaphile stuff
Think about Chrischan and whatever color Sonic's arms are supposed to be
7 months ago
Anonymous
You made the mistake, travel and navigation has gotten significantly easier not harder since 1960, the price to return would massively decrease, not increase.
7 months ago
Anonymous
See what I'm talking about
7 months ago
Anonymous
No, I see that you can't make a logical point and have implicitly conceded your moronic argument while making vague personal attacks that only imply you have a point to make.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Your did by making moronic projections about costs without understanding the factors involved, computers aren't the only things have are cheaper to manufacture, materials in general have been driven down by mass production and distribution efficiencies driven by computing progress.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Are you still the same moron that was arguing that a moon base could be paid for by moon rock speculation
7 months ago
Anonymous
A commercial interest making a return trip for sure, depending on how much profit that made would drive whether or not there would be more trips or the need for a full base.
7 months ago
Anonymous
lol
lmao
LMFAO OMG
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
7 months ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession it would be laughable easy to return to the moon if anyone ever actually went there in the first place and forged a path especially given how willing people are to speculate going so far as to invest billions of dollars in pixels of funny cartoon monkeys.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Say dumb ass how much would you pay for a moon rock? I'm looking at starting a business that will put NFTs to shame.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Organizations pay anywhere from 50k-5M per gram to license the use of moon rocks because all moon rocks are property of the US government and exclusively licensed to high end research institutions, its hard to tell how much collectors, private hobbyists, and speculators would pay, but it would likely be well above the $50k/gram minimum the us government currently fines organizations who "lose" them.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I'm dying what
Lmfao can we clone this guy and have a sitcom where a bunch of him share a house and bazinga all over each other constantly
7 months ago
Anonymous
No, cloning doesn't account for personality, but you should definitely go back to passively watching television shows since making rational points and understanding reality are clearly not for you.
No they don't and they have purposely ruined a number of triplets lives to show that they turn out with different personalities if they are raised in low income, middle income, or high income environments.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>muh socioeconomic factors
identical twin studies have also shown that intelligence is between 95-99% genetic and heritable.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Too bad we are talking about personality rather than intelligence, but I would be moving the goals posts to if I was trying to make such a moronic argument as we know how to clone personality.
7 months ago
Anonymous
If we bought back a few million tons of moons rocks earth GDP would increase by trillions of dollars at those prices. We'd live like kings.
7 months ago
Anonymous
The new supply would definitely affect the demand and price, but that doesn't change the fact that you could definitely raise a ton of capital based on speculation if you had a clear path to bring just a few thousand pounds back in a trip rather than a moon landing mythology and moon rocks that are hidden away government property that only a few people are allowed to look at.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Lmao he actually responded
7 months ago
Anonymous
Kek, he definitely can't refute the logic or justify 60 years of not repeating to the most historic achievement humanity has ever made.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm being a moron on purpose!
Good for you, anon!
7 months ago
Anonymous
No, you are still the moron who thinks each computer in a new space program would cost $5M dollars today because of how much they cost in 1960.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>the IBM 1401 was sold for nearly $400K in 1961
The old computers will never go to the moon, they don't work like that any more, nasa has repeatedly said they will have to reinvent the wheel to return to the moon and when they do, each computer will not cost $2.5M, so you your attempt to project costs based on the fact that old IBMs cost half a million a pop just doesn't work.
>each computer will not cost $2.5M
No, you are still the moron who thinks each computer in a new space program would cost $5M dollars today because of how much they cost in 1960.
>you are still the moron who thinks each computer in a new space program would cost $5M dollars
I love how it keeps going up
I accept your concession, you can't make your point and have to resort to personal attacks because your logic regarding projecting computing costs is so pants on head moronic.
>1 is something entirely different than all the other numbers. >the number 5 is made up 1 1 1 1 1
I don't think you understand what entirely different means.
Also, 1 is made up of 1/2 + 1/2.
5 is made up 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2
It's a matter of area, not numbers. Numbers are just representations of things. You have one block. That block can only measure 1 on any axis. 1x1 = 1. 1x1x1=1.
He doesn't understand that the balancing is only required for modifying, and even if it were it would be 1x1=1x1 and 1x1 is the same as saying 1 anyway. His argument would be like saying 2x2 doesn't equal 4 because it's not balanced.
he's very obviously an idiot on a fundamental level for many reasons, not the least of which is his total misunderstanding of the associative and commutative laws, his own definition of which seemingly pulled out of his own ass.
What does Terrance Howard say when someone tells him that he is misunderstanding commutative and associative laws? I had to look up what they were since I hadn't heard about them since 3rd grade, but they're really quite simple and intuitive. Not at all complicated like Terrence Howard makes them seem.
If you already have 5 apples then that's 5x1, not 5x0. If you have anything zero times, you don't have anything at all. In realistic terms you can't multiply an existing object by zero, because it already exists it must be greater than or equal to 1.
I think he's one of the greatest mathematicians in the history of mathematics. Throughout each lecture following the black genius and his pals from Harvard as they fight assorted racists has been indistinguishable from pure science. Aside from the general rules and formulas, math’s only consistency has been its lack of sense and ineffective use of 1, all to make no sense, to make 1 seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Whites vetoed the idea of 1×1=2; they made sure the number would never be mistaken for a digit that meant anything to anybody. Just ridiculously profitable lecture material for their books. The modern mathematical theory might be anti-Black (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-sense in its refusal of 1×1=2. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
>b-but 1×1=1
"No!" The sentiment is dreadful; the idea is terrible. As I multiplied, I noticed that every time a 1 was timed by 1, the mathematician wrote instead that the equation "equaled one".
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that equation was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. The White's mind is so governed by cliches and dead integers that he has no other method of though. Later I read a lavish, long equation including 1 by the same Stephen Hawking. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are multiplying 1 at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to equal 1" And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you multiply 1x1=1, you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen Hawking and White supremacy.
Some teacher somewhere humiliated this Black so badly that it broke his mind and he spent the rest of his life trying to prove that he can actually maths, it's everyone else who has maths wrong.
This Black person gave an "honorary lecture" on this shit to a room full of white college kids who had to not laugh for fear of cancellation, if you want to know one of the tiers of hell.
hes right as in numbers do not exist and all math is based on geometry which does not need anything but the unit.
so you need ONE and thats it
just duplicate the 1
it's because he thinks the square root of 2 is 1, i don't think he ever got to the point of understanding decimals or fractions, he's just been hung up on this since he was in gradeschool
Seriously think about it, typically the fake moon landings comes with space itself being fake, and what would possibly be the point or purpose of such a massive conspiracy
What would that possibly hide, what could be worth such subversion
Is this just hell, this is hell, isn't it
>what would possibly be the point or purpose of such a massive conspiracy
To make you think you are trapped on a ball and have no reason to venture beyond the ice.
its so funny this dude is married to an asian chick
her parents must be the most pissed off people in the world
not only married a Black person but also one so bad at math
>be Cowboy from Dead Presidents >Rolling Stone reporter comes over for puff piece >blow lid off global conspiracies >reporter does hatchet job and invents origami maths to smear you
Manufacturing costs are far cheaper but everything expertise wise is geared towards commercialism and planned obsolescence, not making shit that could last
Which is a minor problem when travelling for days in vacuum trying to nail a comparatively tiny target
as best as i can understand it, it seems he has an issue with multiplication, where he believes there is an imbalance, whether that's spiritual or universal balance, who knows. 1x1 = 2 if you think of a x b as a x (b+1). i would like to know what he thinks the value of a x b is when neither a or b is 1. 2x3 could be 8 or 9 according to this/him. he only relies on a being 1, and later in the 'paper' he says 1x2=3, 1x3=4, etc. but he never swaps them, what would 2x1 be? could be 4 based on his logic of "adding itself".
if he had a legitimate idea, it could be like finitism, where it's completely useless as a mathematics, but actually it's just describing the reality of computer science. nothing exists unless it can be computed.
When your penis is so laughably small, theres no limits to the amount of cope you're capable of > even inventing new maths
If 1x1=2, guess how many inches my penis must be!!
dis nig based and I'm not interested in hearing otherwise.
Couldn't he have just admitted he was initially wrong?
It's no big deal, we all get it wrong sometimes.
is this what they mean by the decolonisation of stem?
Yes. Well, this and that
>deodorize your mind
>witchdocters can send lightning to kill you
Girl from some random college
Most inteligent black human
>alright heres why 1+1=11, based on the laws of thermodynamics and non newtonian fluid observations
this is what happens, this is how it starts
you say a man is a woman and suddenly the moon landings are fake and the earth is flat, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria
>the moon landings are fake
This is true tho
I choose to believe the moon landings were real because if they weren't then we are doomed as a species
dooooooooooooooomed
And all this means frick all
Yea, its just like with Everest once one person makes it to the top, there is no reason for anyone to want to go back for the next 100 years since its just dead space and someone already went there first, so no real reason to go back.
It doesn't cost hundreds of billions to get to the top of Everest. If it did nobody who didn't have a commercial interest would want to go. The only real interest in the moon given the expense of the trip and some habitation there is to venture further, something we weren't really ready yet. But it sucks it got moved away from.
Apollo only cost 25.8 billion with 1960s level technology and that was for seven trips to the moon. The moon has plenty of commercial interests and mining potential given a gram of moon rock is worth $50k.
As hard as it is to argue with trips, that is $244 billion now
>mining potential
It doesn't have anything that atm isn't far cheaper to mine here
>a gram of moon rock is worth $50k.
Because there were only 7 trips to the moon.
>that is $244 billion now
We have massively cheaper technology and production capabilities now now, if you were using your logic to figure out the cost of a computer, you would have to consider the IBM 1401 was sold for nearly $400K in 1961 and assume a computer today would cost the average consumer $2.5M instead of a couple hundred.
>It doesn't have anything that atm isn't far cheaper to mine here
Except you can't mine moon rocks and sell them for $50k/gram.
>Because there were only 7 trips to the moon.
Sure, but if you sold shares ahead of time for individual investors to get whatever you could bring back, the program could pay for itself based on speculation on moon rocks alone because of how limited the supply is.
>We have massively cheaper technology and production capabilities now
And also massively cheaper quality products, to a degree, many of those ancient systems still work
>funding a moon base based on moon rocks
Really not getting this "rarity value" thing, it's already a purely novelty substance, would burn out faster than NFTs
>many of those ancient systems still work
No they don't, NASA has repeatedly said they would have to reinvent the wheel to return to the moon.
>it's already a purely novelty substance
Worth $50k/gram.
>would burn out faster than NFTs
That is why you would fund the missions first based on speculation which is exactly what you are doing about the value burning out since nobody actually went back to the moon, but people have spent billions of dollars developing NFTs and NFT marketplaces, probably enough to pay for a trip to the moon with nothing real to show for it except pixels on a screen.
>NASA has repeatedly said they would have to reinvent the wheel to return to the moon.
Lol, because Apollo era NASA was a national corporation that employed tens of thousands, full of experts, whose sole purpose was getting to the moon, of course that stopped existing the second the funding for it dried up, despite the fact that it was like 60 years ago so few who were around then for it still are, it's not just about the computers they used at all, given the complexity of the task and the computer limitations of the time they did very little compared to the human expertise
>you would fund the missions first based on speculation
Musk would have already tried this route if it would have worked for a one off I'm sure
>people have spent billions of dollars developing NFTs and NFT marketplaces, probably enough to pay for a trip to the moon with nothing real to show for it except pixels on a screen.
I can't argue with the pointlessness, we also give a ton of money to Ukraine and Israel
>many of those ancient systems still work
>stopped existing the second the funding for it dried up
Make up your mind.
>Musk would have already tried this route
No, he doesn't need to appeal to commercial investors, he has been scamming entire governments who demand much less return, but he has definitely discussed going to the moon and eventually mars if government income ever dries up.
>can't tell the difference between a computer and a space program
My dad is not a cell phone
Those computers were purpose designed, so if there is no hardware and there is no infrastructure for them to connect to, how exactly do they "work"?
Sorry I didn't realize your dad was the Apollo Space Program.
>stopped existing the second the funding for it dried up
The computers can't get to the moon on their own, frendo, they require an entire corporation running them that no longer exists as it did, which it what I was speaking to ceasing existence from lack of continued funding.
we can't go to the moon because there aren't enough black wombyn in stem any more
We only got there in the first place because we absorbed a bunch of Nazi scientists to work with the black womyn
The old computers will never go to the moon, they don't work like that any more, nasa has repeatedly said they will have to reinvent the wheel to return to the moon and when they do, each computer will not cost $2.5M, so you your attempt to project costs based on the fact that old IBMs cost half a million a pop just doesn't work.
>your attempt to project costs based on the fact that old IBMs cost half a million a pop just doesn't work.
Lol that was never anything but a minor point that almost no computer made now is still going to be working in 60 years, not saying they would be using the same computers, frendo
>Lol that was never anything but a minor point that almost no computer made now is still going to be working in 60 years
Moot point since it didn't take 60 years for the Apollo program to reach the moon seven times, it would still be massively cheaper to do the computer calculations and controls today than in the 1960s, so you projections based entirely on the cost of computing in 1960s are all flawed.
You're so stupid it's mind boggling are you fricking Terence Howard
I accept your concession, you can't make your point and have to resort to personal attacks because your logic regarding projecting computing costs is so pants on head moronic.
Yep, so stupid he doesn't even know who he's talking to, kek
Moron
That other guy made you look like a moron lol
>based entirely on the cost of computing in 1960s
Who said they were, I didn't
You'll notice half a million is not 25 billion
Wrong guy
>You'll notice half a million is not 25 billion
Yea because they didn't use only one computer, half a million was the cost of a single IBM mainframe in 1960 with each terminal costing tens of thousands when today you can get much more powerful mainframes for a couple of thousand and terminals for a couple hundred.
How exactly did the cost of the computers become the main driving focus of the discussion, cause I didn't take it there
An autist got hung up on being caught on a simple mistake, very typical Cinemaphile stuff
Think about Chrischan and whatever color Sonic's arms are supposed to be
You made the mistake, travel and navigation has gotten significantly easier not harder since 1960, the price to return would massively decrease, not increase.
See what I'm talking about
No, I see that you can't make a logical point and have implicitly conceded your moronic argument while making vague personal attacks that only imply you have a point to make.
Your did by making moronic projections about costs without understanding the factors involved, computers aren't the only things have are cheaper to manufacture, materials in general have been driven down by mass production and distribution efficiencies driven by computing progress.
Are you still the same moron that was arguing that a moon base could be paid for by moon rock speculation
A commercial interest making a return trip for sure, depending on how much profit that made would drive whether or not there would be more trips or the need for a full base.
lol
lmao
LMFAO OMG
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I accept your concession it would be laughable easy to return to the moon if anyone ever actually went there in the first place and forged a path especially given how willing people are to speculate going so far as to invest billions of dollars in pixels of funny cartoon monkeys.
Say dumb ass how much would you pay for a moon rock? I'm looking at starting a business that will put NFTs to shame.
Organizations pay anywhere from 50k-5M per gram to license the use of moon rocks because all moon rocks are property of the US government and exclusively licensed to high end research institutions, its hard to tell how much collectors, private hobbyists, and speculators would pay, but it would likely be well above the $50k/gram minimum the us government currently fines organizations who "lose" them.
I'm dying what
Lmfao can we clone this guy and have a sitcom where a bunch of him share a house and bazinga all over each other constantly
No, cloning doesn't account for personality, but you should definitely go back to passively watching television shows since making rational points and understanding reality are clearly not for you.
>cloning doesn't account for personality
separated identical twin studies suggest otherwise.
No they don't and they have purposely ruined a number of triplets lives to show that they turn out with different personalities if they are raised in low income, middle income, or high income environments.
>muh socioeconomic factors
identical twin studies have also shown that intelligence is between 95-99% genetic and heritable.
Too bad we are talking about personality rather than intelligence, but I would be moving the goals posts to if I was trying to make such a moronic argument as we know how to clone personality.
If we bought back a few million tons of moons rocks earth GDP would increase by trillions of dollars at those prices. We'd live like kings.
The new supply would definitely affect the demand and price, but that doesn't change the fact that you could definitely raise a ton of capital based on speculation if you had a clear path to bring just a few thousand pounds back in a trip rather than a moon landing mythology and moon rocks that are hidden away government property that only a few people are allowed to look at.
Lmao he actually responded
Kek, he definitely can't refute the logic or justify 60 years of not repeating to the most historic achievement humanity has ever made.
>I'm being a moron on purpose!
Good for you, anon!
No, you are still the moron who thinks each computer in a new space program would cost $5M dollars today because of how much they cost in 1960.
>the IBM 1401 was sold for nearly $400K in 1961
>each computer will not cost $2.5M
>you are still the moron who thinks each computer in a new space program would cost $5M dollars
I love how it keeps going up
Wrong guy again buddy
Inflation is a real son of abitch.
>and suddenly the moon landings are fake and the earth is flat
>and suddenly
again
he doesnt understand reality
1x1=1 is correct and is balanced because the number 1 is something entirely different than all the other numbers.
It is the only thing that exists
the number 5 is made up 1 1 1 1 1
dont get me started on pemdas
>1 is something entirely different than all the other numbers.
>the number 5 is made up 1 1 1 1 1
I don't think you understand what entirely different means.
Also, 1 is made up of 1/2 + 1/2.
5 is made up 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2
It's a matter of area, not numbers. Numbers are just representations of things. You have one block. That block can only measure 1 on any axis. 1x1 = 1. 1x1x1=1.
He doesn't understand that the balancing is only required for modifying, and even if it were it would be 1x1=1x1 and 1x1 is the same as saying 1 anyway. His argument would be like saying 2x2 doesn't equal 4 because it's not balanced.
>and 1x1 is the same as saying 1 anyway
Re-read the proof, midwit.
>Have one thing
>MULTIPLY it once
>You now have the one thing plus it's multiplied instance (2)
>Racists will still say 1x1 is 1
Multiplication is not addition
Ok so it is addition, but, there's like, extra steps
This is just all shit we made up anyway
black people when they try and fight the IRS over unpaid taxes
a yakubian scholar trying to educated snow apes
honestly he should of chosen 1^0=1. that shiet is hella confusing and i think it would of won over brainlets then this insane sjoet he wrote lol
Can someone redpill me on 1 x 2? It's 3 right? You know to make it balanced.
Yes, Terrence.
I wonder how many drugs... it's obviously shattered his perception on reality to a (at least somewhat) permanent degree
he's very obviously an idiot on a fundamental level for many reasons, not the least of which is his total misunderstanding of the associative and commutative laws, his own definition of which seemingly pulled out of his own ass.
The quads have spoken.
What does Terrance Howard say when someone tells him that he is misunderstanding commutative and associative laws? I had to look up what they were since I hadn't heard about them since 3rd grade, but they're really quite simple and intuitive. Not at all complicated like Terrence Howard makes them seem.
I don't know what he SAYS but I know that he thinks he understands them and they don't
Brainlet here. Can any math magicians Redhill me on ___ x 0? How the frick does it turn anything to 0?
Redpill*
It means there aren't any of that thing genius
If you don't have any apples, what number of apples do you have?
If I have 5 apples and I multiply it by zero I would still have 5 apples
Excuse me sir you dropped this brain here on the floor
Thanks can I have 10x more of them? No? Thanks for the one brain.
0x*
If you already have 5 apples then that's 5x1, not 5x0. If you have anything zero times, you don't have anything at all. In realistic terms you can't multiply an existing object by zero, because it already exists it must be greater than or equal to 1.
5 x 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
Get it now?
What are the basic laws of common sense?
1. Black folk are moronic
2. israelites are evil
>1+(1x1)=3
ok im in
Where does he say
>using the laws of common sense
I think he's one of the greatest mathematicians in the history of mathematics. Throughout each lecture following the black genius and his pals from Harvard as they fight assorted racists has been indistinguishable from pure science. Aside from the general rules and formulas, math’s only consistency has been its lack of sense and ineffective use of 1, all to make no sense, to make 1 seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Whites vetoed the idea of 1×1=2; they made sure the number would never be mistaken for a digit that meant anything to anybody. Just ridiculously profitable lecture material for their books. The modern mathematical theory might be anti-Black (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-sense in its refusal of 1×1=2. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
>b-but 1×1=1
"No!" The sentiment is dreadful; the idea is terrible. As I multiplied, I noticed that every time a 1 was timed by 1, the mathematician wrote instead that the equation "equaled one".
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that equation was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. The White's mind is so governed by cliches and dead integers that he has no other method of though. Later I read a lavish, long equation including 1 by the same Stephen Hawking. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are multiplying 1 at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to equal 1" And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you multiply 1x1=1, you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen Hawking and White supremacy.
This is what happens when you get too high off your farts.
Some teacher somewhere humiliated this Black so badly that it broke his mind and he spent the rest of his life trying to prove that he can actually maths, it's everyone else who has maths wrong.
This Black person gave an "honorary lecture" on this shit to a room full of white college kids who had to not laugh for fear of cancellation, if you want to know one of the tiers of hell.
Wet wipe that butthole for the truth
Math is racist now, so yes.
If you multiplied yourself with yourself you'll have twoselves
Never forget that the white man took this from you
i've yet to see anyone prove him wrong
>is he right?
Incorrect & inherently unbalanced position nexus, anon.
The correct question promoting correct answer balance is:
Why is he right?
the area of 1 by 1 cube is 1 square area, not 2
>Next time
hes right as in numbers do not exist and all math is based on geometry which does not need anything but the unit.
so you need ONE and thats it
just duplicate the 1
If I have one 2 (1x2) then I have 2. If I have one 1 (1x1) then I have 1.
I legitimately don't know how this could be simpler to understand.
it's because he thinks the square root of 2 is 1, i don't think he ever got to the point of understanding decimals or fractions, he's just been hung up on this since he was in gradeschool
Yes but how would he feel if he hadn’t had breakfast this morning?
Do people even have breakfast anymore?
No way too expensive
Of course, food is all modern people think about, so they definitely wake up and immediately think about it and shove slop into their fat faces.
That's how I wake up, but I usually wait until lunch.
1 character x 1 actor/character = 2 actors
his logic is flawless
I rape male black ass with my BWC
Alright guys I came to /r/TV to laugh at memes, not take a math lesson. I'm in my 30s, I should be done with school!
Look we all know this is wrong. But I doubt anyone here is capable of writing the mathemetical proof for this. And non of that induction bullshit.
Seriously think about it, typically the fake moon landings comes with space itself being fake, and what would possibly be the point or purpose of such a massive conspiracy
What would that possibly hide, what could be worth such subversion
Is this just hell, this is hell, isn't it
>what would possibly be the point or purpose of such a massive conspiracy
To make you think you are trapped on a ball and have no reason to venture beyond the ice.
I love this meme but sometimes I think its only purpose is to troll morons into dying of exposure in Antarctica
Dudes really smart he wrote a whole book
>Hey here is one apple that you only get once
>HEY WHERE IS MY SECOND APPALE
Besides the massive ice wall and flat earth requires the collusion of commercial pilots, and too many of them drank the vodka
its so funny this dude is married to an asian chick
her parents must be the most pissed off people in the world
not only married a Black person but also one so bad at math
His dick is at least asian sized.
>be Cowboy from Dead Presidents
>Rolling Stone reporter comes over for puff piece
>blow lid off global conspiracies
>reporter does hatchet job and invents origami maths to smear you
Is he like the black Neil Breen? lmao what a narcissist wacko.
that accent plus that intonation is pure torture
whenever i see this guy all i can think about is his ex wife trying to blackmail him to not expose his micro penis.
Wut
He straight up showed it in the 50 Cent movie
Manufacturing costs are far cheaper but everything expertise wise is geared towards commercialism and planned obsolescence, not making shit that could last
Which is a minor problem when travelling for days in vacuum trying to nail a comparatively tiny target
I'm not your buddy guy, and the moon is a hologram
no
>one copy of five things is five things
>one copy of ten things is ten things
>one copy of one thing is... two things
Yes.
It's not a copy, it's just the thing itself
That's what one copy of one thing is: one thing.
But, anon: if I have one X, I actually have two Xs. See?
as best as i can understand it, it seems he has an issue with multiplication, where he believes there is an imbalance, whether that's spiritual or universal balance, who knows. 1x1 = 2 if you think of a x b as a x (b+1). i would like to know what he thinks the value of a x b is when neither a or b is 1. 2x3 could be 8 or 9 according to this/him. he only relies on a being 1, and later in the 'paper' he says 1x2=3, 1x3=4, etc. but he never swaps them, what would 2x1 be? could be 4 based on his logic of "adding itself".
if he had a legitimate idea, it could be like finitism, where it's completely useless as a mathematics, but actually it's just describing the reality of computer science. nothing exists unless it can be computed.
you joke but in 10 years this will be considered the "new truth" and denying it will be racist
When your penis is so laughably small, theres no limits to the amount of cope you're capable of
> even inventing new maths
If 1x1=2, guess how many inches my penis must be!!
All that effort and he still is harassed by the hallway crickets
he's in he's time cube arc