Terrence Howard's 1x1=2 Proof is Incorrect

The fact that something so obvious is getting so much oxygen is a demonstration of society failing

If 1x1 = 2, then I wouldn't be able to type this sentence on a computer terminal; let alone even experience what a computer would be in the first place!

Mr Howard seems to be dabbling in glass pipe mathematics

I watched that JRE episode, it was very very uncomfortable to see an obviously mentally unwell person go so completely unchallenged, it was like listening to the result of throwing science books into a shredder and using text to speech on the output. I hope he gets treated and makes a full recovery, I really do.

What's next, someone will claim the earth is round?

I really wasn't expecting a conspiracy theory at the end of this "proof". Let's now prove that the Earth is flat because it "looks flat". I was expecting some arcane piece of mathematical gymnastics that might be considered "clever", this was not. Thank you for teaching me a little math.

I’m glad I saw this. I saw his Oxford lecture and when he mentions the commutative and associate properties he kind of mumbles through them and I thought it sounded wrong, but I couldn’t hear it clearly enough to be sure. And yeah, that sounds like what he said and no, that ain’t what those properties are.

As a mathematician, I cringe at the mere stupidity and childish presentation of an argument that is based on unfounded structure, riddled with suppositions that are completely false! Clearly, Terrence Howard could not even pass a basic middle school algebra class with his inept understanding of the rules of arithmetic. Why is anyone giving this 'artist' the time of day? This all sounds like part of an act for a new exhibit that he's working on in Hollyweird.

I've been arguing with people on Reddit on this topic and they all act like there is a deeper meaning to his ideas and that he is just not good at demonstrating them while speaking. You can't persuade them

1 only once, is 1 because it has been done ONCE.

'IF' we are talking discrete integer math, then 1x1never equals 2 - However, if we are addressing analog/continuous numbers, then it come down to probability as to what 1x1 'could' equal - Note the 1 here is only provided to one significant digit - In reality, 1 could be anywhere between 0.51 and 1.49 ( to 3 significant digits) - All of which round to 1 (to one significant digit) - Therefore, 1x1 could be anywhere between 0.26 (0.51x0.51) and 2.22 (1.49x1.49) - Of which '2' is clearly in this range - Conclusion, 1x1 'could' be 2 (to one significant digit) probablistically, but we don't know precisely, based on what is given.

The ternary operator killed me :D According to Terrence 10/5 = 2 8/4 = 2 6/3 = 2 4/2 = 2 2/1 = 1 That's because he actually had in his book the example 4/2 and the "inverse" of that to be 2*2 = 4 he compared that to 2/1 and just "stated" that the inverse should be 1*1 = 2 He calls "our" system is "inconsistent". However if you look at the series I just posted, the only inconsistency I can see is in HIS calculation. In the normal world, all those fractions have the same value and that is 2.

This is very easy to prove just take the addition sign and rotate 45 degrees which is the fundamental angular basis of the wombs exit … ahh now he’s got me

He is on something for sure

What needs to be said here other than: if you eat 1 pizza 1 times, how many pizzas did you eat?

He never attended USC, and USC does not award degrees in chemical engineering. He gave a commencement speech at USC, for which he was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Human Letters. Other distinguished recipients of this honor include Kermit the Frog. On the first page of his proof, the lines that come between "Then, let's try..." and "Associative and Commutative Law's" assume the conclusion to prove the conclusion. Ipso facto this "proof" and all conclusions based on it are invalid.

Terry wrote "Someone forgot to follow the basic rules of multiplication" Yes, and that someone is Terrence Howard.

1 x 1 = 2 divide both sides by 1. 1 = 2

This was great!

Can’t see you speak, you’re expecting me to read the page as you talk? You’re not calling out anything on the page you’re not using captions so it’s very hard to follow.