Terrence Howard's "Square Root of 2 is a Loop" is Not that Impressive

~~ Please Like & Subscribe if you enjoyed this video!! It really helps to support this small channel!! ~~ I keep finding PRO-Terrence Howard videos that use clips of this video, MISREPRESENTING my math, as if it were in SUPPORT of Terrence Howard. Please REPORT any of the TONS of AI-generated AI-narrated Terrence Howard videos on YouTube as "Misinformation", if you come across them, if they misrepresent my mathematics shown here, or if they contain other blatant lies. I just had to report one video that promoted Terrence Howard's claims that he can cure AIDS and cancer with soundwaves, since that is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS MEDCIAL DISINFORMATION!!! People could die because of what Terrence Howard is saying. I also believe children should also not be exposed to disinformation like Mr. Howard's 1x1=2, especially if they are already struggling with mathematics. Terrence Howard is a real-life supervillain, and people may die if he keeps promoting his lies that he can cure AIDS and cancer. Note: This video is NOT in support of Terrence Howard's outrageous claims or ridiculous math!! Terrence Howard is not a mathematician nor a scientist; he is a fraud. This video is to show that the result he is astonished by, and places so much importance on, is easy to demonstrate (prove) with elementary algebra, and that it holds no deep meaning, as he claims it does. This result does NOT "break" math, nor is it "unnatural", and indeed it makes perfect sense. He claims this loop "does not make math make sense". The math is sound. It's Mr. Howard that simply does not understand it. I am happy to see all the interesting mathematical discussions in the Comments section here! That is how Mr. Howard can ultimately advance mathematics: just keep being wrong, and let math students explore more and more ways to prove you wrong! That is Mr. Howard's small net positive on the mathematics community at large. Thanks for watching, all!

Terrance's IQ is 1 x 1

Bro if you take the year you were born and add your age, it'll be the current year

I agree with you James DeLaPena. I include below my investigation of this square root of two matter: To see through Howards square root of 2 trick, you have to realize that you are just doing the following: 1) take any number 2) cube the number 3) square the number 4) divide the cube by the square 5) surprise! you have the original number again Tricky Howard's original number is the square root of 2. He is not telling you that 2, is the SQUARE of the square root of 2. That is √2 x √2 = 2. So your are dividing the cube by the square to get the original number again and again. LOL. This works for any number. Examples: number 3, cube 27, square 9, divide cube by square 3 number 4, cube 64, square 16, divide cube by square 4 number √3, cube 3√3, square 3, divide cube by square √3 number √2, cube 2√2, square 2, divide cube by square √2 Quite a funny little con, just saying "divide by 2" instead of saying divide by the square. He made the implications so elaborate and devastating, like science is broken, HaHa. Still waiting for an answer on if 1x1=2, then what does 2x1 equal? (That one is just a play on the Bible definition of "multiply" versus the mathematical definition of "multiply.") He got over heavy with that one too.

I played the video of Howard doing his calculator demo and my 15 year old understood what it was doing right away. Not sure why he thinks this is so mystical. Great explanation.

You can also take 3, cube root it, raise it to the power of four, and then divide by 3 to create a loop. There's nothing special about the square root of 2.

It's not impressive at all. It's simple algebra : a^3/a^2 = a. You can do this with any positive number. Take the square root of pi and cube it, divide it by pI and you'll get back the square root of pi again. Come to think of it, it works for negative numbers too. i^3/i^2 = i

Wait till he finds out the transpose of a matrix has the same determinant

The sqrt of 2 cubed thing to me, feels like the same sort of thing as “2 shouldn’t be prime because every other prime is an odd number”! It gives beginners pause for a second until you get a deeper understanding.

The reason only the square root of 2 can be cubed and then divided by 2 to become the square root of 2 again is because 2 is the square root of 2 squared. Literally any number you cube and then divide by its square will “loop”. So no, nothing to his credit! (X^3)/(X^2) =X for all real numbers…

taking square root of a number (sqrt of x), is finding a value that when multiplied by itself gives x cubing a number is multiplying it 3 times by itself so when you cube x you get when you take (sqrt of x) and cube it you get (sqrt of x)cubed this equals to (sqrt of x) * (sqrt of x) * (sqrt of x) which simplifies to x * (sqrt of x) dividing x * (sqrt of x) by x gives (sqrt of x) lets see an example of this start with x = (sqrt of 2) cube (sqrt of 2) = (sqrt of 2) * (sqrt of 2) * (sqrt of 2) = 2 * (sqrt of 2) divide by 2 : 2 * (sqrt of 2) / 2 after cubing (sqrt of 2) and dividing by 2 you are back at (sqrt of 2) so you can do this with any number (sqrt of x) cubed / x = (sqrt of x)

Could also cube the square root of any number and divide by that number and you'll get the same result. I.e. ((√x)^3)/x)=(√x) or written a different way (x^1/2)^3/(x^1)=(x^3/2)(x^-1)=x^(3/2 - 1)

I mean, isn't it just x³/x²=x? And in this particular case x²=(√2)²=2 😅

After the Joe Rogan podcast i watched his video on this and i have no clue why he thinks it is so unique. I think his mind is not grasping the value of sqrt2 at times. In the video, he gets to a point where he puts up... "(sqrt2)^3 = sqrt2 + sqrt2 = 2.sqrt2". He even makes this noise like he's going to laugh at it, and says something like "what in the world?" I honestly think he is confused about the values and raising them to powers. In that equation, which is fine i guess, but the middle part is where he starts to get confused. Sqrt2 + Sqrt2 is the same thing as 2(sqrt2), but the point is 2 is a significantly LARGER value than sqrt2. It doubles the value of sqrt2 when multiplied by 2. Thats where his confusion comes up, he seems to think that cubing sqrt2 should produce a larger value than multiplying it by 2... but cubing it multiplies it by sqrt2, then multiplies the result by sqrt2. The fact is sqrt2 is closer to 1 than it is to 2, its a significantly smaller value. So there is literally nothing strange about this equation. It certainly doesnt suggest that anything is broken in math. Even to get to that equation he does a bunch of unnecessary switcharoos with fractional powers, i guess just to show us that he can? It was absolutely unnecessary and added nothing at all only useless complexity. Literally the only thing he is thing he is showing that is that (sqrtX)^3 / X = sqrtX, for any natural value of X. There is nothing special at all about dividing by 2 in his actions except that it is the number under the radical / surd.

I feel like i'm doing math but the professor is the captain of a plane.

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate and comment back to so many people. I’m here bc math is hard for me, but I’m still interested regardless.

When will you be presenting this to Oxford?

This loop works for any x with (sqrt(x))^3)/x but in this case x is 2. You can immediately see this works if you take sqrt(3) divide by 3 sqrt(5) divide by 5 etc. You’d think he’d be able to see this pattern before presenting this idea to Oxford students.

If Terrence can show a consistent mathematical scheme in which 1 times 1 = 2, and in which multiplication by zero is not allowed, by defining multiplication differently, that would be AN arithmetic. We might view any consistent system of manipulating numbers (or even non-numbers) as arithmetic. I am not a mathematician so I cannot evaluate Terrence's work on that basis. But self-consistency does not mean the new system is the least bit useful. If he wants to show that his new system generates astounding new science, he should make predictions that distinguish his system from conventional science, and test whether those predictions fail or succeed. Science is written in the language of mathematics, but not all mathematics is useful science. I would not be surprised to learn that some folks are going to say that you have proved "looping", but given the reality that it only works for 3 numbers removes much of the glamour. But his supporters don't require much awe, because they like the anti-establishment results. Try not to make this endeavor a personal thing. Taking offense (even rightly) is just going to make his supporters that much more sure that we are all just butt-hurt about his revolutionary ideas making us irrelevant. Of course, if he is claiming to cure HIV and cancer along with being anti-vaccine, he is dangerous.

1x1=3 if you don't pull out