Terrence Howard | One Times One Equals Two - Preface

[@bookclub5291]

I know that the audio and resolution are not the best, but I wanted to share a stand alone video for the preface of the book. As we continue and read the rest of the book, this will of course improve. 🙏

[@lorib7072]

The sound is not too bad Lewis 😊

[@rodneyadderton1077]

Thank you for reading this.

[@NigglesSquiggles]

maybe do a KZbin seach on how to adjust the resolution settings in OBS.

[@SeviersKain]

The Mantra the Buddha taught, the vibrational energy... TH has something very deep for us to delve into !!! And We Must !!!

[@ligidobastian9245]

Please stop smoking crack

[@dfjpr]

I don't think the buddha taught vibrational energy waffle at all, not at all.

[@deborahlasorda3767]

For me, I feel the 1 x 1 = 2, is Terrence's biggest challenge to overcome. I feel he is challenging all of us to re-examine all of our previous concepts of what this reality truly is. I have been pondering this Math question, as I am old-schooled, but feel TH is trying to help us with new Truths. I finally got an insight in my dreams last night. If there is one cell in your body, that is then multiplied times one, wouldn't that leave you with two cells. If you had a one dollar bill, but you multiplied it times one, would that then give you two dollars? Once again, is this just another demonstration of the differing concepts and perceptions of how we see our world. Why are we not coming together and exploring these ideas, rather than viciously attacking those who do not see the world with the same eyes as "you"?

[@KLiCuk1]

No. He doesn’t understand the basic principles of mathematics. If 2/1=1 then 2=1. GENIUS !

[@RB-vf9xn]

He playing semantic games, taking the meaning of multiply from regular language and applying it o mathematics which is not valid, in math words have a very specific meaning, and Terrence is playing semantic sophistry wi5 the simple minded.

[@KK-sg5gl]

This is his (dumb) logic: 2+2=4, 2x2=4 1+1=2, 1x1=2 So what about 3x3=9? So…3+3=9 too? Or does 3x3=6?

[@dfjpr]

No.

[@aaronpoage597]

In patterns hidden, truths reside, From ancient wisdoms, none can hide, In numbers pure and shapes divine, We trace the cosmic grand design. From sacred sites to stellar dance, In every turn, we find a chance, To glimpse the order, feel the beat, Of universal laws discreet. The pyramids, the stars above, Resonate with a primal love, Their ratios and rhythms tell, Of secrets known to those who dwell. In music’s chord and nature’s form, In fractal paths where chaos swarms, We see the threads that bind and weave, A tapestry we scarce believe. As planets move and seasons change, Their patterns, though they may seem strange, Are whispers of a truth profound, In every beat, in every sound. We stand upon the brink, it’s clear, A new horizon drawing near, Where ancient truths and science blend, And human hearts anew ascend. So let us seek, let us explore, These cosmic truths forevermore, In harmony, with open eyes, We’ll journey forth and realize.

[@duncanidaho7759]

Very Beautiful !!

[@littlewillowlinda]

Did you just… make this up just now… 😮 well done

[@KLiCuk1]

sophistry at its finest

[@nicholasdunlop8875]

The guys literally insane. He talked horrible about the Bible and then Noah and then tried to quote the same Bible he talked horrible about In the same interview. Anyone that tries to spread his 1×1 is 2 bs is literally just spreading ignorance with him!

[@HigherInfluence]

Lee Cronin who is a top inorganic chemist comments on Terrence Howard’s JRE episode. Unfortunately I can’t paste a link but if you type top chemist on Terrence Howard into the KZbin search it should come up.

[@kenknudsen7478]

We Work From The Shadows To Serve The Light.

[@bookclub5291]

🙏

[@dfjpr]

Isnt it more consistent to say that, 4/2=2, 2x2=4 is like 1/2,=0.5, 2x0.5=1 . Hes confused himself. What hes done is multiply by the same number he divided by, which gives you the original number.

[@KK-sg5gl]

3x3=9, therefore 3+3=9

[@trombone7]

​@@KK-sg5glI agree. 3x2=5. It's so dumb, it has no edges like a lead sphere.

[@lane7939]

Terrence Howard 🫵🏾🙏🏽African proverb Ubuntu‼️ I am because we are we are because I am Ubuntu 🙏🏽👀

[@KK-sg5gl]

This is his (dumb) logic: 2+2=4, 2x2=4 1+1=2, 1x1=2 So what about 3x3=9? So…3+3=9 too? Or does 3x3=6?

[@baronbullshyster2996]

There’s three sorts of people in this world. One’s that can count. And ones that can’t count. 🧐

[@dfjpr]

1+1-1 = a jar of cookies.

[@gabejimenez250]

Yes keep reading

[@GT-012]

Dude, lisening to Terence theory with this audio is like solide proff 1 times 1 equals duble torture 😂😂

[@jamesmcmillan2311]

I just found on KZbin a 3 year old competition of one of Terrences inventions ,the lynchpin,his new way of flight that resembles ufo phenomena. I am following this guy and seeing howvto invest.

[@KK-sg5gl]

Three years and nothing has come of it? And it’s free info on KZbin? That’s because it’s BS.

[@kristinacable]

❤

[@AP_Designs]

Established physics already proves that 1x1 = 2. You see this in the fundamental equation E ∝ A² which describes the Energy-Amplification Mathematical Relationship where the energy transported by a wave is directly proportional to the square of the amplitude of the wave for if you have a wave amplitude of 1 unit, the energy must be 2 units. Terry is right, our math is flawed..

[@jonathannadeau6218]

Neil Smoked the Grass Tyson’s book is out ? 😂

[@handyalley2350]

He's doing logic.

[@KK-sg5gl]

This is his (dumb) logic: 2+2=4, 2x2=4 1+1=2, 1x1=2 So what about 3x3=9? So…3+3=9 too? Or does 3x3=6?

[@ThisManWild]

Look up Star talk with Neil degrasse Tyson and the video labeled. My response to Terence Howard, where he disproves his mathematical ideas.

[@dfjpr]

Does he think hes going to get killed for making a math mistake?

[@caroline61804]

He meant plus

[@RadarRecon]

Mr. Howard, with his list of accomplishments, is just too smart for his own good. He walks through a forest and can't see the trees. Let's take his equation at its simplest: 1 x 1 = 2, and start at the beginning. Take a writing implement and something to write on. Make a mark , a one ( 1 ) and look at it. How many ones are there. A person can see one 1. 1 is there one time. There is only one 1 . Therefore, that 1 is 1. It is not 2. To make a sparrow requires one female and 1 male sparrow (unless there's some biological process of which I am unaware). These 2 can make 1 more, but 1 sparrow by itself cannot make 2 others. Mr. Howard's logic is extremely deficient.

[@bookclub5291]

It may be deficient, but it’s very intriguing tho. 🤔

[@dfjpr]

I like it, but hes loopy. It was like Kanye, but instead of the jews, its the "they".

[@jamesmcmillan2311]

Terrence has a working prototype from 3 years ago of his new flight invention using the vertices of the flower of life called the Lynchpin. Aerodynamic engineers are excited about its possibilities. I am looking how to invest instead of stereotype him as crazy.

[@dfjpr]

@@jamesmcmillan2311 yes i saw that, it's pretty good. Though a drawing is not a spaceship.

[@otruwarrioro]

The fact you dont know who they are disqualified you from this conversation. Wake up.

[@dfjpr]

@@otruwarrioro be quiet, they're coming.

[@Patatmetmayo]

Terrence took 1x1 too many magic mushrooms, he doesn't understand the actual framework of math and how to apply it. It may sound very smart to challenge such a basic mathematical concept, but in reality it's just silly wordsmithing and a bit ridiculous. It could fool the math challenged among us, but not actual mathematicians who know how to interpret and apply the rules in a consistent way. You can change the rules and certain definitions, but then you also have to stay logically consistent and your new mathematical rule should also actually be useful for something. Redefining multiplication by saying 1 x 1 = 2 is neither logically consistent nor useful for any actual mathematical applications. Let me explain how math works. Addition is when you add something to something, so 1 + 1 = 2. If you add 1 apple to this other 1 apple I have here, I now have 2 apples. This should be obvious to anyone I think. Now multiplication is when you look at how many times a number is added to itself. So if I have 1 apple here, and I want to multiply this apple by 2, we have 1 + 1 = 2. The number 1 here is added to itself exactly 2 times. 1 x 3 = 3, or 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. The number 1 here is added 3 times to itself. Now it logically follows from this that 1 x 1 has to be 1. I do understand where the confusion comes from though. 1 + 1 = 2 could be interpreted as adding 1 only one time to itself and therefore 1 x 1 = 2. But this is simply not how the mathematical operation works and is defined. The confusion arises from the definition and interpretation of the word 'to multiply'. People with a bad intuition for math could feel like if something multiplies with itself a single time you should now have exactly 1 copy more of whatever you had before. But that's forcing your own interpretation of language on an already existing and well-defined mathematical concept. Now we could change the existing mathematical rule to say that 1 x 1 = 2, the 1 apple multiplies itself one time and now there are 2 apples. But then that would mean 1 x 2 now has two logical answers from this newly defined mathematical rule. 1 apple that multiplies itself 2 times should becomes 3 apples, but 2 apples that multiply once should become 4 apples. So 1 x 2 is now both 3 and 4? How to make this new rule logically consistent and useful to establish a proper mathematical framework? Yeah this is why Terrence is not a mathematician and should stay very far away from trying to reinvent math lol.

[@mharrington8297]

You seem confused. You say multiplication is when you look at how many times a number is added to it's self. If 1 is added to itself once that equals 2. 1x1=2

[@penielchery2765]

​@@mharrington8297 let's break it down. I'll replace 1 with ❤ 1 x ❤ = ❤ 2 x ❤ = ❤❤ 3 x ❤ = ❤❤❤ 4 x ❤ = ❤❤❤❤ 1 x 1❤ doesn't equal 2❤

[@Patatmetmayo]

@@mharrington8297 No it's you that is confused here, I explained why in my comment above.

[@mharrington8297]

I'll admit, you have me totally confused

[@KK-sg5gl]

This is his (dumb) logic: 2+2=4, 2x2=4 1+1=2, 1x1=2 So what about 3x3=9? So…3+3=9 too? Or does 3x3=6?