He's walking proof that if you're stubborn enough sometimes the world will bend to your will.
homie told himself 1 + 1 = 2 as a kid and hasn't come to grips with the truth ever since. Was probably arguing with some other kid on the playground.
your mind isn't "retreating" from anything, it's more like you have so many theorems backing up 1+1 = 2 ingrained into you from childhood that to deconstruct it casually would require neuroplasticity on the level akin to what hallucinogenics or EXTREMELY high IQ gives you.
so there is a mental hitch. that's it.
>He's walking proof that if you're stubborn enough sometimes the world will bend to your will.
Oxford math professor should tell him show it on functional graphics. Because math is abstraction and real life objects with time change their forms, so everything must calculated in progression.
oxbridge is an absolute joke these days and basically lives off their old names, using it to scam the kids of wealthy chinese parents
t. brother teaches physics at oxford
>oxford will just let any schizo ramble to students as long as they are black and semi famous
but why? isn't this kind of mean to play along with someone's delusions especially if you're supposed to be an authority in science and reason? Do they also allow people to teach about the 4 humors and blood letting to med students?
every ring with identity has a unique homomorphism of Z into it which sends the integer n to the element 1+...+1 n times ((-1)+...+(-1) if n is negative). in the case of the zero ring, every integer is sent to zero and 1=0 in the ring. thus, both 1x1 and 2 in this ring are equal to 0, so 1x1=2
i don't know what you mean by this, you mean that the zero ring is the only place where this equality happens? if so, you're right, because 1=1x1=2=1+1 implies 1=0, so the ring is the zero ring (x=1*x=0*x=0 for any x in the ring. note when i speak of rings i mean ones with identity, the most ubiquitous kind
>doesn't know what he's talking about
in programming land, he's right.
languages that define division by 0 == 0 are deemed heretical.
we're talking about mathematics here and 0 only divides 0 in the realm of math
>we're talking about mathematics here and 0 only divides 0 in the realm of math
except in ZF(C), as I mentioned, 0 / 0 is either a singularity or undefined.
do you know what singular means?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>except in ZF(C), as I mentioned, 0 / 0 is either a singularity or undefined.
source? i'm not a set theory/logic expert, but i'm still a maths student and that does not sound like a ZFC thing to me. mind you, the only way ZFC deals with the naturals is asserting that infinite sets exist
in my other post i outlined how divisibility is defined for integers (or for any integral domain for that matter) and showed how this implies that 0 divides only 0. idc what kind of clown definition you're using for divisibility, but the one i'm using is the universal standard in number theory and algebra
>do you know what singular means?
the word "singular" means plenty of things in math (from non-invertible matrices to degenerate curves), specify what exactly you mean
you sound to me like someone who only recently watched a Numberphile video about the axiom of choice and is just parroting stuff
i'm saying the statement isn't true just because there's a homomorphism of the elements where it is true. if it was an isomorphism, i.e. something that identifies equivalent structures, then i'd agree with you.
for example, saying the square root of 2 is the set of rational numbers such that x<0 or x^2<2 is a true statement, because no matter how you defined the real numbers, you can always find an isomorphism to the set of dedekind cuts.
ofc, i'm not saying that because this holds in the zero ring it holds in the integers or any other ring, my whole point was that there is a very special case where this holds and nowhere else
11 months ago
Anonymous
>source?
you can either look up ZFC yourself or try this on for size:
The limit of (x^2−1) / (x−1) as x approaches 1 is actually 2. Figure that one out.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>you can either look up ZFC
ok, you officially don't know anything >or try this on for size: >The limit of (x^2−1) / (x−1) as x approaches 1 is actually 2. Figure that one out.
lmao, you do realise that x^2-1=(x-1)(x+1)? your big "figure that out" statement is just the continuity of addition in R
try again when you have something to say, bro. i don't mean to be demeaning, math is a journey and you clearly have a lot to learn
11 months ago
Anonymous
the "figure that out" statement wasn't meant to be condescending it was offering a demonstration. if x = 1 then you get 0 / 0 which in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is undefined, a singularity, or what?
11 months ago
Anonymous
you don't understand how limits work, my man, you don't just plug in a value and calculate it (unless the function for which you're calculating the limit of is continuous), e.g. you can't just substitute 0 into sinx/x and say that it's undefined or that the limit is infinity
11 months ago
Anonymous
to follow up, if you're calculating lim_{x->1}x^2-1/x-1 you don't just plug in 1, because the function x^2-1/x-1 is not defined in that point (therefore vacuously not continuous there). however, on R{1} the function is equal to x+1, so the limit is equal to lim_{x->1}x+1 and into THIS you can plug the value 1
11 months ago
Anonymous
to follow up, if you're calculating lim_{x->1}x^2-1/x-1 you don't just plug in 1, because the function x^2-1/x-1 is not defined in that point (therefore vacuously not continuous there). however, on R{1} the function is equal to x+1, so the limit is equal to lim_{x->1}x+1 and into THIS you can plug the value 1
the "figure that out" statement wasn't meant to be condescending it was offering a demonstration. if x = 1 then you get 0 / 0 which in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is undefined, a singularity, or what?
to summarise, you don't understand how limits are defined/manipulated and think plugging stuff in works/leads to contradictions somehow (which it doesn't, believe you me). i recommend reading Rudin's PMA if you've had previous exposure to real analysis, otherwise read Spivak's Calculus
That's such bullshit. When you divide something, you are taking away from it, a fraction of the whole. When you divide by zero, which is nothing, you are therefore taking nothing. 4 divided by 0 should be 4, because nothing was done.
i just gave you the mathematical division of divisibility in the integers. if your quibble is with how that relates to real life and whether it has "meaning", i ask you what 4 divided by -2 "means" then
11 months ago
Anonymous
>you don't understand how limits work
The limit of (x^2−1) / (x−1) as x approaches 1 is actually 2. This is verifiable if you know and aren't too lazy to do the rigor. The problem with that equation when x equals 1 is you end up with 0 / 0. Which is undefined... or a singularity.
to follow up, if you're calculating lim_{x->1}x^2-1/x-1 you don't just plug in 1, because the function x^2-1/x-1 is not defined in that point (therefore vacuously not continuous there). however, on R{1} the function is equal to x+1, so the limit is equal to lim_{x->1}x+1 and into THIS you can plug the value 1
[...]
[...]
to summarise, you don't understand how limits are defined/manipulated and think plugging stuff in works/leads to contradictions somehow (which it doesn't, believe you me). i recommend reading Rudin's PMA if you've had previous exposure to real analysis, otherwise read Spivak's Calculus
[...]
i just gave you the mathematical division of divisibility in the integers. if your quibble is with how that relates to real life and whether it has "meaning", i ask you what 4 divided by -2 "means" then
>to summarize
lim_{x->1 }(1^2-1) / (1-1) = 2
as i've said all along... bro you're not going to israelitetalk me into thinking 0 / 0 is something else.
11 months ago
Anonymous
alright, you're either trolling or a moron set in his ways, i won't get through to you, but one last time: yes, the limit is 2, you are correct, but that doesn't mean that 0/0=2, because you can't just plug the value 1 into the limit, because the function is undefined there. plugging values into a limit only works for CONTINUOUS functions in their DOMAIN OF DEFINITION. as an example, i gave you sinx/x which has limit 1 as x approaches 0, doesn't mean that 0/0=1. 0/0 is simply NOT defined, end of conversation (everything beyond this point is moot) https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51d4bm/eli5_why_does_sinxx_1_when_x_0/
11 months ago
Anonymous
that stupid equation is one of the easiest to demonstrate the absurdity. i've been saying that 0 / 0 is either undefined or a singularity from the get.
don't ever post a fricking reddit link citation to me ever again you doubleBlack person
i'm saying the statement isn't true just because there's a homomorphism of the elements where it is true. if it was an isomorphism, i.e. something that identifies equivalent structures, then i'd agree with you.
for example, saying the square root of 2 is the set of rational numbers such that x<0 or x^2<2 is a true statement, because no matter how you defined the real numbers, you can always find an isomorphism to the set of dedekind cuts.
Coming out of high school alot of my friends started using amphetamines and ever since then I have zero tolerance for schizo pseudo science bullshit. Frickers would stay up for 2-3 days and start pontificating on black holes or whatever science thing they last heard or saw about and it was the most pathetic insufferable shit I have ever gone through. His thesis reminds me of tweakerbabble but I doubt he's actually getting high and that is somehow even more pathetic.
He's high on his own sense of uniqueness and infallibility
He is Terry, why wouldn't he be, if his answer is wrong then math is wrong >1x1=2 so don't tell me I'm not worth as much as RDJ
>When 1 x 1 = 2 we have a balanced equation where the laws of Universal Equilibrium and the Conservation of Universal Energy remains intact.
I don't have a reaction image for how confused this sentence made me
>Even now, almost 6000 years later, why is it that only I in the history of recorded history has ever asked this question concerning an "unbalanced equation."
You can tell that’s his real thesis. ‘This whole thing is just to demonstrate how in history and the present, only I am truly right thinking and correct, an understanding I exercise quite frequently when I’m being fired’
Isn't the problem with this right at the start?
like he adds +1 to both sides but for some reason uses both 1x1=2 and 1x1=1 at the same time
Idk much about mathmatical proof though.
>Associative and Commutative law's 3=2
This is what happens when """mathematicians""" forget that math is just a representation of reality and start building on laws that build or other laws.
1 x 1 =
You have 1 person with 1 apple each, how many apples are there total?
2 x 1 =
You have 2 people with 1 apple each, how many apples are there total?
>laws of common sense >balancing equation by number of terms on each side instead of value of terms >not distributing the 1 when he adds to both sides >doesn't apply associative or commutative law properly
Not gonna bother reading the rest.
How is anyone entertaining this shit.
Despite what Cinemaphile has taught you, being told that you’re wrong, stupid, and anyone who listens to your shit is having their mind vandalized, doesn’t mean others are upset.
I feel like he said something stupid in class once and a teacher humiliated him and it broke his mind
He feels that humiliation every day and only working on Terryology models to finally prove him wrong all these years later is the only thing that soothes it
This is literally what happened, in an interview he mentioned that it all started with him getting in an argument with a college math professor over the professor passingly assuming 1*1 to equal 1, and Terry insisting it had to equal 2.
He's unirionically right. If I have 2 sets of 2 rocks I have 4 rocks, therefor 2 times 2 equals for. So if I have 1 set of one rock I have 2 rocks because it's impossible to have a set of only 1 object. Therefor, 1 times 1 equals 2.
>if i have 1 rock i have 2 rocks
na homie watchu gotta do is cut dem 2 rocks in to 4 rocks den re-rock it into 8 rocks and hit the corner spot witcho boi Jamar make dat money mang street maff
This is the problem with math that doesn't include abstract information.
I know 1 x 1 = 1, but it should be written as something more tangible, such as 1cm x 1cm = 1cm^2, since that's what really happens.
1cm x 1cm = 1cm is therefore incorrect since it doesn't account for unit changes.
I think this is where someone like Done Cheadle is getting confused.
Yes. Because you're a moron, you assume that someone taking issue with Dirac's statement must be a theist.
Also, Plato (the inventor of this quandary) argued for the existence of God.
>0 x 0 is an imaginary construct which, by necessity, must equal 0, despite the illogical complexity. 0 x 0 = 0 to the second power, or squared. But you cannot square something without value; it lacks geometrical definition and therefore implodes and reverts to a null and void value, being 0.
>1 times 0 cannot be 0, because zero is a void value. If it is altered by anything, 1 for instance, it then has to have a value other than 0. >Remember, the equation has to be balanced. 1x 0 = 0 is unbalanced because it presupposes that the 1 has no value or effect, when it does. Therefore, 1 x 0 = 1
kek
zero is not a quantity, therefor it's not a number.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>zero is not a quantity, therefor it's not a number.
except that's wrong until you define a better set theory than Zermelo-Fraenkel. and btw i meant any number divided by 0 becomes 1 (previously stated incorrectly but shown correctly in examples)
11 months ago
Anonymous
>any number divided by 0 becomes 1
why
11 months ago
Anonymous
dividing by 0 is otherwise undefined
11 months ago
Anonymous
why wouldn't it be zero? >4 divided by nothing is nothing
11 months ago
Anonymous
0 wrecks our basic mathematical foundations.
Which is why all the weird and inconsistent rules around it don't seem to make much sense. But there has to be a sense of consistency so things don't completely break down.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It actually doesn't, you just overcomplicate things.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>why wouldn't it be zero?
because 0 / 0 is form of singularity, or normally it's undefined.
our current best working number theory is the Zermelo-Fraekel set theory, and it has to be that way to avoid Russell's Paradox. so you can read up on those to understand the "why" part better
11 months ago
Anonymous
I still don't understand why 4 / 0 couldn't = 0
or why it would need to be defined as 1
11 months ago
Anonymous
in the integers, b is said to divide a if there is an integer c such that a=bc. 0 does not divide anything but 0, because if 0 divides a, then there is an integer b such that a=0xb=0, so the question >why doesn't 0 divide 4?
is moot, because a priori 0 divides only 0
11 months ago
Anonymous
That's such bullshit. When you divide something, you are taking away from it, a fraction of the whole. When you divide by zero, which is nothing, you are therefore taking nothing. 4 divided by 0 should be 4, because nothing was done.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Shouldn’t something divided by nothing just be the original quantity? >I have divided 4 by nothing >4 has not been divided
I think it’s time to write a paper and get famous
11 months ago
Anonymous
but that would be 4 / 1 = 4
11 months ago
Anonymous
>and btw i meant any number divided by 0 becomes 1
dividing by 0 is otherwise undefined
>why wouldn't it be zero?
because 0 / 0 is form of singularity, or normally it's undefined.
our current best working number theory is the Zermelo-Fraekel set theory, and it has to be that way to avoid Russell's Paradox. so you can read up on those to understand the "why" part better
this moron doesn't know what he's talking about, see
in the integers, b is said to divide a if there is an integer c such that a=bc. 0 does not divide anything but 0, because if 0 divides a, then there is an integer b such that a=0xb=0, so the question >why doesn't 0 divide 4?
is moot, because a priori 0 divides only 0
11 months ago
Anonymous
>doesn't know what he's talking about
in programming land, he's right.
languages that define division by 0 == 0 are deemed heretical.
>Terrence Howard goes on to play Rhodey >"Don't worry Tony, I got two shots left" >Fires off a single shot, not enough to save Chicago from getting turned into a crater >"WHY RHODEY" >"The display said I had 1x1 shots left Tony, the gun musta jammed SHIIEEETTTTT"
Every time I see one of these threads the combination of terrys aggressive and confident stupidity, along with the actual morons here, and the smart anons pretending to be moronic at some point I start questioning my own understanding of basic math and have to leave the thread before I start losing iq points(and I need them all trust me, not many to spare). If you have even a tiny shred of doubt about something, it’s amazing how confident stupidity can start to get under your skin.
Black personolgy threads like these help root out the rational, likely white, anons, from the moronicly arrogant pseudo smart shitskins. It's less about math and more about biology.
the gays shitposting are white you moron. you're honestly delusional if you don't believe that a significant proportion of the white population is spastic. truly dumb shitskins wouldn't even know how to type in English, that already puts them levels above 1 language smoothbrain whites.
Imagine I was a bead seller who sold beads by jars of some standard number each. Imagine I told Terry I had only one of my "one bead per jar" bead jars left. How many beads do you think Terry would say I had?
I love how he thinks that the banks also know that 1x1=2 and 0.1x0.1=1 and use that to multiply their money, while they pay people according to "regular math".
>Black person watches a lecture on fractional reserve banking >peanut brain copes by coming up with 1x1 = 2 >THEY LYIN TO YOU, IT AINT REAL!!
They're so close to ~~*knowing*~~
He likely keeps going on about it because he only talks to stupid women irl and they don't give a frick about what he's rambling on about as long as he's rich and he takes care of them. I can totally see him going off after something triggers him and whoever he's dating at the moment just goes "it's okay baby, I know ... you're so right!!"
If he tried this bs on even the stupidest ghetto idiot he'd get clowned and his head caved in within a couple of minutes of the conversation starting.
I would do this too, I don’t think I’m a good person. But it would be so funny I wouldn’t be able to help myself. One time my coal burning cousin brought over this we wuz black dude to a holiday and I egged him on for hours until my racist grandpa blew a gasket so bad I thought blows were going to be thrown.
He's correct but his mouth isn't smart enough to explain it. He's not talking about multiplication but the idea of mathematics. If you give an apple to someone do you now have "zero apples" the apple only changed hands, it didn't stop existing.
Doesn't disprove what I just said. That way of thinking limits mathematics to just something that can be used as a tool rather than something outside of reality.
In some situations, calculations like this could cause someone's life. Like in private submarine case. Lesson for life never go to submarines with people who can't do math.
Ok so how does he think calculators and computers work?
Does he think some cabal of people who want you to do math wrong hard-coded each and every calculator and computer to do math wrong (and despite it work normally otherwise) just to spite common sense thinkers like him?
>Does he think some cabal of people who want you to do math wrong hard-coded each and every calculator and computer to do math wrong
funny you say that
Most computers and calculators are programmed with American PEMDAS (M/D && A/S have separate priority levels and then resolve left-right). Whereas Yuro/Algebra PEMDAS is purely linear resolution.
hahaha epic topical joke, you know like the sub story that has everyone talking. god I love your topical current references. you have your finger DIRECTLY on the pulse anon!
If I put a coin somewhere on the floor at the supermarket on monday then come back on wednesday and see that very same coin lying there on that very same location, how do I know it's the same coin?
Explain mathsisters...
If objects are mental inventions, then how can the coin exist when nobody is perceiving it? Where is it between Monday, when I leave it there, and Wednesday when it is found again?
Case in point, the janitor swapped the coins
>If objects are mental inventions, then how can the coin exist when nobody is perceiving it?
It only exists if I perceive it. You, and all other objects only exist when you interact with me.
so when terry goes to a vending machine and buys one soda for one dollar and the machine asks him for one dollar does he think it's broken? is the machine in on it? Is he just lucky that it gave him a half off discount for no reason. I'm guessing he would just say that "money isn't real" or some other pused shit to deflect the conversation though.
You have a micropenis. I can't take you seriously
He was thinking with his dick when he came up with this
Is that your length/girth?
worth a watch to see how confidently he speaks on things he knows very little about
>you guys know about straight lines? you think there's straight lines in the universe
>let me hit you with something
why was he asked to speak at Oxford?
Participation trophy
Probably got them some DEI money
He's walking proof that if you're stubborn enough sometimes the world will bend to your will.
homie told himself 1 + 1 = 2 as a kid and hasn't come to grips with the truth ever since. Was probably arguing with some other kid on the playground.
Its funny how the rational mind kinda retreats from bullshit like actually typing out "1 x 1 = 2."
good catch
your mind isn't "retreating" from anything, it's more like you have so many theorems backing up 1+1 = 2 ingrained into you from childhood that to deconstruct it casually would require neuroplasticity on the level akin to what hallucinogenics or EXTREMELY high IQ gives you.
so there is a mental hitch. that's it.
No, I can almost physically feel my entire being resisting and recoiling against saying stupid/wrong shit, even if I want to, as a joke, in minecraft.
I’m just no good at being an idiot.
>He's walking proof that if you're stubborn enough sometimes the world will bend to your will.
Oxford math professor should tell him show it on functional graphics. Because math is abstraction and real life objects with time change their forms, so everything must calculated in progression.
oxbridge is an absolute joke these days and basically lives off their old names, using it to scam the kids of wealthy chinese parents
t. brother teaches physics at oxford
Black person privilege
>oxford will just let any schizo ramble to students as long as they are black and semi famous
but why? isn't this kind of mean to play along with someone's delusions especially if you're supposed to be an authority in science and reason? Do they also allow people to teach about the 4 humors and blood letting to med students?
Cinemaphile here, this is true in the zero ring and no other
googler here. how can it be true when the zero ring has only one element?
every ring with identity has a unique homomorphism of Z into it which sends the integer n to the element 1+...+1 n times ((-1)+...+(-1) if n is negative). in the case of the zero ring, every integer is sent to zero and 1=0 in the ring. thus, both 1x1 and 2 in this ring are equal to 0, so 1x1=2
so it's only one way. you need an isomorphism for equivalence.
i don't know what you mean by this, you mean that the zero ring is the only place where this equality happens? if so, you're right, because 1=1x1=2=1+1 implies 1=0, so the ring is the zero ring (x=1*x=0*x=0 for any x in the ring. note when i speak of rings i mean ones with identity, the most ubiquitous kind
we're talking about mathematics here and 0 only divides 0 in the realm of math
>we're talking about mathematics here and 0 only divides 0 in the realm of math
except in ZF(C), as I mentioned, 0 / 0 is either a singularity or undefined.
do you know what singular means?
>except in ZF(C), as I mentioned, 0 / 0 is either a singularity or undefined.
source? i'm not a set theory/logic expert, but i'm still a maths student and that does not sound like a ZFC thing to me. mind you, the only way ZFC deals with the naturals is asserting that infinite sets exist
in my other post i outlined how divisibility is defined for integers (or for any integral domain for that matter) and showed how this implies that 0 divides only 0. idc what kind of clown definition you're using for divisibility, but the one i'm using is the universal standard in number theory and algebra
>do you know what singular means?
the word "singular" means plenty of things in math (from non-invertible matrices to degenerate curves), specify what exactly you mean
you sound to me like someone who only recently watched a Numberphile video about the axiom of choice and is just parroting stuff
ofc, i'm not saying that because this holds in the zero ring it holds in the integers or any other ring, my whole point was that there is a very special case where this holds and nowhere else
>source?
you can either look up ZFC yourself or try this on for size:
The limit of (x^2−1) / (x−1) as x approaches 1 is actually 2. Figure that one out.
>you can either look up ZFC
ok, you officially don't know anything
>or try this on for size:
>The limit of (x^2−1) / (x−1) as x approaches 1 is actually 2. Figure that one out.
lmao, you do realise that x^2-1=(x-1)(x+1)? your big "figure that out" statement is just the continuity of addition in R
try again when you have something to say, bro. i don't mean to be demeaning, math is a journey and you clearly have a lot to learn
the "figure that out" statement wasn't meant to be condescending it was offering a demonstration. if x = 1 then you get 0 / 0 which in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is undefined, a singularity, or what?
you don't understand how limits work, my man, you don't just plug in a value and calculate it (unless the function for which you're calculating the limit of is continuous), e.g. you can't just substitute 0 into sinx/x and say that it's undefined or that the limit is infinity
to follow up, if you're calculating lim_{x->1}x^2-1/x-1 you don't just plug in 1, because the function x^2-1/x-1 is not defined in that point (therefore vacuously not continuous there). however, on R{1} the function is equal to x+1, so the limit is equal to lim_{x->1}x+1 and into THIS you can plug the value 1
to summarise, you don't understand how limits are defined/manipulated and think plugging stuff in works/leads to contradictions somehow (which it doesn't, believe you me). i recommend reading Rudin's PMA if you've had previous exposure to real analysis, otherwise read Spivak's Calculus
i just gave you the mathematical division of divisibility in the integers. if your quibble is with how that relates to real life and whether it has "meaning", i ask you what 4 divided by -2 "means" then
>you don't understand how limits work
The limit of (x^2−1) / (x−1) as x approaches 1 is actually 2. This is verifiable if you know and aren't too lazy to do the rigor. The problem with that equation when x equals 1 is you end up with 0 / 0. Which is undefined... or a singularity.
>to summarize
lim_{x->1 }(1^2-1) / (1-1) = 2
as i've said all along... bro you're not going to israelitetalk me into thinking 0 / 0 is something else.
alright, you're either trolling or a moron set in his ways, i won't get through to you, but one last time: yes, the limit is 2, you are correct, but that doesn't mean that 0/0=2, because you can't just plug the value 1 into the limit, because the function is undefined there. plugging values into a limit only works for CONTINUOUS functions in their DOMAIN OF DEFINITION. as an example, i gave you sinx/x which has limit 1 as x approaches 0, doesn't mean that 0/0=1. 0/0 is simply NOT defined, end of conversation (everything beyond this point is moot) https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51d4bm/eli5_why_does_sinxx_1_when_x_0/
that stupid equation is one of the easiest to demonstrate the absurdity. i've been saying that 0 / 0 is either undefined or a singularity from the get.
don't ever post a fricking reddit link citation to me ever again you doubleBlack person
You and the other.
NERD!
i'm saying the statement isn't true just because there's a homomorphism of the elements where it is true. if it was an isomorphism, i.e. something that identifies equivalent structures, then i'd agree with you.
for example, saying the square root of 2 is the set of rational numbers such that x<0 or x^2<2 is a true statement, because no matter how you defined the real numbers, you can always find an isomorphism to the set of dedekind cuts.
Dumping his "paper".
1/4
2/4
3/4
4/4
Coming out of high school alot of my friends started using amphetamines and ever since then I have zero tolerance for schizo pseudo science bullshit. Frickers would stay up for 2-3 days and start pontificating on black holes or whatever science thing they last heard or saw about and it was the most pathetic insufferable shit I have ever gone through. His thesis reminds me of tweakerbabble but I doubt he's actually getting high and that is somehow even more pathetic.
He's high on his own sense of uniqueness and infallibility
He is Terry, why wouldn't he be, if his answer is wrong then math is wrong
>1x1=2 so don't tell me I'm not worth as much as RDJ
>to Infinity and Beyond
He has to be fricking with everyone
>When 1 x 1 = 2 we have a balanced equation where the laws of Universal Equilibrium and the Conservation of Universal Energy remains intact.
I don't have a reaction image for how confused this sentence made me
Makes sense to me!
Conservation of Energy = lack of true destruction. If you lose something it doesn't mean it no longer exists.
>1 x 16 = 17
Terrence, we'll give you $100,000 per episode for 16 episodes
>so, I get $1.7 million, nice!
>Even now, almost 6000 years later, why is it that only I in the history of recorded history has ever asked this question concerning an "unbalanced equation."
You can tell that’s his real thesis. ‘This whole thing is just to demonstrate how in history and the present, only I am truly right thinking and correct, an understanding I exercise quite frequently when I’m being fired’
Well 1* 17=18, it doesn't work with real objects, man. Get real.
Why do we enslave ourselves to "tradition" bros?
>"Mmmhm".. the not so lucky "ENTIRE WORLD."
What the hell is happening?
>schools of hirer learning
this is a school, right?
is he calling out ~~*them*~~?
>annunaki the sky people
is james cameron trying to tell us something?
jimmy is tapped in
It's like he's on the Mt. Stupid of Mt. Stupid.
>(1) + (1 x 1 ) = 3
im going to say it
>math paper
>now let's recall the laws of common sense to solve this equation
Kek
All of this cope just because he doesn't understand multiplication.
>Dashon
shiiiieeeeeet
Isn't the problem with this right at the start?
like he adds +1 to both sides but for some reason uses both 1x1=2 and 1x1=1 at the same time
Idk much about mathmatical proof though.
>adds +1 is the problem
>not "nature desires action but demands equilibrium"
are you ok?
>Remember the basic laws of common sense
The over use of comma is almost as annoying as, his, "math".
>common sense
1x1 = 1 one time
What about the balance and the equilibrium of nature? Did you considered that?
i don't need to consider it, the sky people told it to me in a dream
>Associative and Commutative law's 3=2
This is what happens when """mathematicians""" forget that math is just a representation of reality and start building on laws that build or other laws.
1 x 1 =
You have 1 person with 1 apple each, how many apples are there total?
2 x 1 =
You have 2 people with 1 apple each, how many apples are there total?
Simple as
americans don't hold or eat apples anymore
Apples are a mediocre fruit.
Blueberries are better
Apples are the Black person of fruits
Congratulations anon, you're so smart you can debunk a guy who thinks 1x1=2
Yeah but what if the first guy is an butthole and he's hiding an apple in his pockets?
We failed them.
> (1) + (1 x 1) = 3
C'mon man
The frick
I wish I was still in uni. I’d put my name on it and hand it in for some random math assignment just to see what would happen.
>math professor gives you a 0x0 on the paper and passes you
annunaki be praised!
Sounds like the guy was educated by history channel
This has to be a psyop to give the reader a stroke
So how does he explain (a)x(b)=1?
>law’s
This guy doesn’t even understand grammar
It’s like something Chris chan wrote, total clueless echolalia
>laws of common sense
>balancing equation by number of terms on each side instead of value of terms
>not distributing the 1 when he adds to both sides
>doesn't apply associative or commutative law properly
Not gonna bother reading the rest.
How is anyone entertaining this shit.
It seems to have upset some real math anons
Despite what Cinemaphile has taught you, being told that you’re wrong, stupid, and anyone who listens to your shit is having their mind vandalized, doesn’t mean others are upset.
I don't think anyone is taking it seriously. It's funny to read his shitty attempt at writing a scientific paper though.
And yet you can’t seem to disprove his laws of common sense
so this is the black excellence i've heard so much about
this is what happens when a low IQ person is schizotypal
1x2 and 1x3 is ?
It sure is, Terry
>Your response?
Not using Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. Now, care to explain the axioms that allow for that sort of equation in your set theory?
>Not using Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory
Peano axioms*, friend
I tried reading the proof and his QED. Hurt my head, don't do it
I feel like he said something stupid in class once and a teacher humiliated him and it broke his mind
He feels that humiliation every day and only working on Terryology models to finally prove him wrong all these years later is the only thing that soothes it
This is literally what happened, in an interview he mentioned that it all started with him getting in an argument with a college math professor over the professor passingly assuming 1*1 to equal 1, and Terry insisting it had to equal 2.
some sort of narcissism problem
I wonder how many people over the years have gotten just maddeningly frustrated trying to explain basic math to this guy.
I'd say at least two.
his weed dealer and robert downey junior are my guesses for the first 2
He's unirionically right. If I have 2 sets of 2 rocks I have 4 rocks, therefor 2 times 2 equals for. So if I have 1 set of one rock I have 2 rocks because it's impossible to have a set of only 1 object. Therefor, 1 times 1 equals 2.
You can't multiply rock with rocks, you moron. Before you disagree tell me what 4 rocks times 3 bottles makes.
>tell me what 4 rocks times 3 bottles makes.
12 glass shards
>if i have 1 rock i have 2 rocks
na homie watchu gotta do is cut dem 2 rocks in to 4 rocks den re-rock it into 8 rocks and hit the corner spot witcho boi Jamar make dat money mang street maff
>1 == 2
ah yes
>1 set of one rock
>I have 2 rocks
Then where did the other rock come from? You have to have 1 set of 2 rocks.
How many penises do you have?
This is the problem with math that doesn't include abstract information.
I know 1 x 1 = 1, but it should be written as something more tangible, such as 1cm x 1cm = 1cm^2, since that's what really happens.
1cm x 1cm = 1cm is therefore incorrect since it doesn't account for unit changes.
I think this is where someone like Done Cheadle is getting confused.
>What is the square root of 1
Math is about Graphic. 1*1 graphic axes is 1.
How many rocks do you have if you have 2.5 rocks?
Mathematically illogical.
What is God x God?
God
It's a super-value, just like 0 and 1
But is it like Infinity where not all are the same?
clod
Lim/x to infinity?
Flash Speed force literally.
>God isn't real, chud! Trust the science!
It has nothing to do with science. This is what happens when you don't study philosophy.
you mean like this?
this isnt disproof of god its just saying god is a b***h and you shouldnt worship him
its a "disproof" of the christian all powerful/knowing/loving god.
Yes. Because you're a moron, you assume that someone taking issue with Dirac's statement must be a theist.
Also, Plato (the inventor of this quandary) argued for the existence of God.
>god must abide our heckin morality!!
"absolute morality" comes from God, but God doesn't follow it.
What's 1x0?
1
And 0x0?
ridiculous
>0 x 0 is an imaginary construct which, by necessity, must equal 0, despite the illogical complexity. 0 x 0 = 0 to the second power, or squared. But you cannot square something without value; it lacks geometrical definition and therefore implodes and reverts to a null and void value, being 0.
00
Try to keep up
>1 times 0 cannot be 0, because zero is a void value. If it is altered by anything, 1 for instance, it then has to have a value other than 0.
>Remember, the equation has to be balanced. 1x 0 = 0 is unbalanced because it presupposes that the 1 has no value or effect, when it does. Therefore, 1 x 0 = 1
kek
>>1 times 0 cannot be 0
>>1 x 0 = 1
he's unironically and accidentally right in these instances.
no
>hold on bro, let me just multiply by nothing real quick
>haha now this natural number isn't natural anymore XDD
Here I am pretending to be moronic like Terry to make people laugh, and anon over here buys into it.
>schools of hirer learning
also
you need to go back and read the ZF(C) axioms again. any number multiplied by 0 becomes 0. any number divided by 1 becomes 1. ergo:
1 * 0 = 0
1 / 0 = 1
2 * 0 = 0
2 / 0 = 1
...
zero is not a quantity, therefor it's not a number.
>zero is not a quantity, therefor it's not a number.
except that's wrong until you define a better set theory than Zermelo-Fraenkel. and btw i meant any number divided by 0 becomes 1 (previously stated incorrectly but shown correctly in examples)
>any number divided by 0 becomes 1
why
dividing by 0 is otherwise undefined
why wouldn't it be zero?
>4 divided by nothing is nothing
0 wrecks our basic mathematical foundations.
Which is why all the weird and inconsistent rules around it don't seem to make much sense. But there has to be a sense of consistency so things don't completely break down.
It actually doesn't, you just overcomplicate things.
>why wouldn't it be zero?
because 0 / 0 is form of singularity, or normally it's undefined.
our current best working number theory is the Zermelo-Fraekel set theory, and it has to be that way to avoid Russell's Paradox. so you can read up on those to understand the "why" part better
I still don't understand why 4 / 0 couldn't = 0
or why it would need to be defined as 1
in the integers, b is said to divide a if there is an integer c such that a=bc. 0 does not divide anything but 0, because if 0 divides a, then there is an integer b such that a=0xb=0, so the question
>why doesn't 0 divide 4?
is moot, because a priori 0 divides only 0
That's such bullshit. When you divide something, you are taking away from it, a fraction of the whole. When you divide by zero, which is nothing, you are therefore taking nothing. 4 divided by 0 should be 4, because nothing was done.
Shouldn’t something divided by nothing just be the original quantity?
>I have divided 4 by nothing
>4 has not been divided
I think it’s time to write a paper and get famous
but that would be 4 / 1 = 4
>and btw i meant any number divided by 0 becomes 1
this moron doesn't know what he's talking about, see
>doesn't know what he's talking about
in programming land, he's right.
languages that define division by 0 == 0 are deemed heretical.
Okay bud and how does a number implode? It’s just none of nothing, and don’t go telling me that’s something
an equation that proves how fundamentally unsound our maths foundation is
1x1
> You have one group of one thing, how many things do you have
1x0
> You have 1 group of 0 things, how many things do you have
Are people trolling?
Now use axes X and Y. Show what happens when x=1 and y=1 ?
(1,1), a diagonal representation of being one total unit away from (0,0).
Descartes did a lot of damage to math, but even he’d see Cartesian plotting as dumb as frick.
If it works it's works. Math is about f(x).
>Terrence Howard goes on to play Rhodey
>"Don't worry Tony, I got two shots left"
>Fires off a single shot, not enough to save Chicago from getting turned into a crater
>"WHY RHODEY"
>"The display said I had 1x1 shots left Tony, the gun musta jammed SHIIEEETTTTT"
I wouldn't say anything. I would listen.
Technically, due to quantum propagation this is correct. 1x1=1 if you observe it, but if you do not observe it 1x1=2.
Math is nerds, homos, and homosexual nerds.
I mean if men are now women and vice versa, then on some level he's right
Every time I see one of these threads the combination of terrys aggressive and confident stupidity, along with the actual morons here, and the smart anons pretending to be moronic at some point I start questioning my own understanding of basic math and have to leave the thread before I start losing iq points(and I need them all trust me, not many to spare). If you have even a tiny shred of doubt about something, it’s amazing how confident stupidity can start to get under your skin.
Black personolgy threads like these help root out the rational, likely white, anons, from the moronicly arrogant pseudo smart shitskins. It's less about math and more about biology.
the gays shitposting are white you moron. you're honestly delusional if you don't believe that a significant proportion of the white population is spastic. truly dumb shitskins wouldn't even know how to type in English, that already puts them levels above 1 language smoothbrain whites.
This homie just ivented a way to not pay alimony, and yall just clowning on him.
>invents new math
>gets it signed into law
>just to avoid alimony
now THAT would be a kino to watch
order of operations etc. the answer is Black person
Imagine I was a bead seller who sold beads by jars of some standard number each. Imagine I told Terry I had only one of my "one bead per jar" bead jars left. How many beads do you think Terry would say I had?
I think he would beat the shit out of you
With a penis that small? You know he has to be low test as frick.
>why would you sell one bean in jar? that violates common sense law.
I want to see his paper on the law of common sense
It's actually named after his friend, Common, who senses what is true and what is bullshit
He say, "one and one and one is three"
Got to be good looking 'cause he's so hard to see
I love how he thinks that the banks also know that 1x1=2 and 0.1x0.1=1 and use that to multiply their money, while they pay people according to "regular math".
Thanks, I'll report him to the ADL.
>Black person watches a lecture on fractional reserve banking
>peanut brain copes by coming up with 1x1 = 2
>THEY LYIN TO YOU, IT AINT REAL!!
They're so close to ~~*knowing*~~
You have one one, then that’s a one innit.
one one is 11 like on the dial?
He likely keeps going on about it because he only talks to stupid women irl and they don't give a frick about what he's rambling on about as long as he's rich and he takes care of them. I can totally see him going off after something triggers him and whoever he's dating at the moment just goes "it's okay baby, I know ... you're so right!!"
If he tried this bs on even the stupidest ghetto idiot he'd get clowned and his head caved in within a couple of minutes of the conversation starting.
So for 6000 years everyone is in on this giant scam or fooled by it, except him.
He's the only one that has figured it out.
I wish I was his friend, I'd goad him to start getting more and more public with this, start doing lectures and so on... just see how far it goes
I would do this too, I don’t think I’m a good person. But it would be so funny I wouldn’t be able to help myself. One time my coal burning cousin brought over this we wuz black dude to a holiday and I egged him on for hours until my racist grandpa blew a gasket so bad I thought blows were going to be thrown.
>start doing lectures and so on
he is
has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
All jokes aside. He's schizophrenic, right?
This goes way beyond just regular stupidity
Extreme narcissism.
No, he's just Dunning-Kruger.
he's trying really hard to make his contract for ironman make sense
schizo-affective
>Next time baby, in Iron Man 1x1
>alright mr. howard you ordered one coffee and each coffee costs 1 dollar
>that'll be 2 dollars please
>if i drink it i'll only have 1 coffee though, so heres your $1 :^)
If 1 coffee costs 1 dollar and you drank 0 coffees how many dollars do you owe me now?
You're actually correct.
I haven't drank this yet, so i in fact have 0 coffees, so i don't owe you anything.
I lose it every time I get to the Annunaki.
I wish real science papers would throw curve balls like that.
>yeah bro we humans just magically evolved from apes
>and uhhh some apes just didn't evolve i guess idk lol
He's correct but his mouth isn't smart enough to explain it. He's not talking about multiplication but the idea of mathematics. If you give an apple to someone do you now have "zero apples" the apple only changed hands, it didn't stop existing.
He's a moron. If he died we'd still have surplus of morons, including you
Doesn't disprove what I just said. That way of thinking limits mathematics to just something that can be used as a tool rather than something outside of reality.
i^2 = -1
>we're told the square root of 2 is 2
who tells us this
>he wasn't told
I have one but since I would sound mad it wouldn't count.
>Your response?
Sure, I don't know, my math stinks and always have
take your meds
True freedom is being able to say that one and one makes two.
0 / 0 = 0 results in a consistent number system as long as you let 1 + 1 = 1, you know.
And, as it happens, 1 x 1 does equal 2 in this system.
>one, once, is two
>if I have one rock, and I throw it at you, once, how many times were you hit by a rock?
I’m in a superposition of both being hit and not being hit by a rock until you stop being a homosexual
0 because you throw like a pussy
>1 Black person robs your house twice
>how many times have you been robbed?
Well see if you follow the law of common sense the answer is zero
I haven't been hit by a rock, though.
>fire alarm beeping doubles
this guy is a moron but i'd prefer him as kang over jonathan majors
Is this homie moronic or on crack?
He’s just an idiot who’s surrounded by people dumber than him. The joke is barely anyone on Cinemaphile/twitter can tell why he’s wrong.
homie, what is 1/1 and 1^2?
2 and 2, obviously.
In some situations, calculations like this could cause someone's life. Like in private submarine case. Lesson for life never go to submarines with people who can't do math.
Not very inspiring, Anon.
Don't see what math has to do with not making your 2000 psi resistant hull carbon fiber construction equipment.
As we see on result. Constructor of submarine is moron like dude on the pic. And should've better at school.
0 and 2
>i went to the terry logical school of mathematics
Mathematics is all based on assumptions. In a way our knowledge is not complete since we don't know enough about the universe.
Most of what we know is accurate though since you can kind of validate it.
Did no one ever tell this homie to shut up and calculate?
If 1x1 equals 2 then why does 1x2 also equal 2?
>why does 1x2 also equal 2?
It equals 3, it explains all this, if you had bothered to read his proof.
Not in geometry, at least.
Ok so how does he think calculators and computers work?
Does he think some cabal of people who want you to do math wrong hard-coded each and every calculator and computer to do math wrong (and despite it work normally otherwise) just to spite common sense thinkers like him?
>how does he think
Bruh he's a Black person. He doesn't.
>Does he think some cabal of people who want you to do math wrong hard-coded each and every calculator and computer to do math wrong
funny you say that
Most computers and calculators are programmed with American PEMDAS (M/D && A/S have separate priority levels and then resolve left-right). Whereas Yuro/Algebra PEMDAS is purely linear resolution.
I don’t think there’s anything stopping you from programming a computer or calculator to do math wrong though.
Maybe the next step for Terrence is to program his own calculator/computer to do math the proper way.
Turn the “x” a little sideways
Listen here, one coconut + one coconut= 2 coconuts. But multiplication is about geometry and squares. So one coconut square 1= one coconut.
1+1 = 1
Simple as
Not in geometry.
Clearly, you do not possess the brain capacity needed to think in four-dimensional space.
Get better soon
With time machine four dimension is theory.
I hereby declare that I disagree with your opinion.
Aloha
Well, without time machine it's all speculation like Black hole.
It's spatial.
I concur.
>It's spatial.
Proves?
*ahem*
Black folk
Nikkor
I found this part of his wikipedia entry humorous.
Note to self, if I ever feel low on (you)s, moron post in a terryology thread, this is good stuff
x=2
>1x1=2
>1*x*1=2
>1*x*1/1=2/2
>1*x=2
>1/1*x=2/1
>x=2
Just go all the way and add the QED
X=0
>1x1=0
>1x1
>x1^2
>x1^2(-1) carry the 1
> -x÷x+(1)
>0
>:0
Don't let this guy build submarine or there will be another five people.
Stop being racist he’s a genius. He should build an arc for the israelites to escape anti semitism.
hahaha epic topical joke, you know like the sub story that has everyone talking. god I love your topical current references. you have your finger DIRECTLY on the pulse anon!
If I put a coin somewhere on the floor at the supermarket on monday then come back on wednesday and see that very same coin lying there on that very same location, how do I know it's the same coin?
Explain mathsisters...
You don’t know. There is just a high probability that it is.
>see that very same coin
>how do I know it's the same coin?
idk you're the one who already deduced it's the same
If objects are mental inventions, then how can the coin exist when nobody is perceiving it? Where is it between Monday, when I leave it there, and Wednesday when it is found again?
Case in point, the janitor swapped the coins
>If objects are mental inventions, then how can the coin exist when nobody is perceiving it?
It only exists if I perceive it. You, and all other objects only exist when you interact with me.
Just buy your groceries and gtfo
But what if it's a different supermarket?
such a niche reference that you look moronic
Berkeleybros... This one's got me stumped...
so when terry goes to a vending machine and buys one soda for one dollar and the machine asks him for one dollar does he think it's broken? is the machine in on it? Is he just lucky that it gave him a half off discount for no reason. I'm guessing he would just say that "money isn't real" or some other pused shit to deflect the conversation though.
him and time cube man should've joined forces
And I thought I was moronic for not knowing how to use Mellin's inverse formula yet.
Yes commisar