Terrence Howard Does Not Think 1x1 equals 1

[Jim Cornette]

he's actually right...

 

[Professor Emeritus]

and my statement still stands true its based off a man made system. airplane design, navigation and radar are based off of that made up system so of course their design will hold true according to that system. was there logic involved in making up this system? maybe in some cases but in others no they just decided to come up with specific rules like the ones being argued in this topic.

Nah breh, it doesn't work that way.

Ya'all want to destroy your illusions, try taking it a step further - calculate 1.1 times 1, or 8.0101 times 1.101, or anything else.

Create a square that is 1.1 meters by 1.1 meters, and tell me the area of the square.

1x1 = 1 is NOT an "arbitrary" rule. 1x0 = 0 is NOT an arbitrary rule. If you try to change it to 1x1=2 or 1x0=1, then everything else completely breaks down. You'll find yourself incapable of doing the simplest decimal math problems.

Anyone who believes that 1x1=2, then tell me what 0.2x1.1 equals?

The Moors were brilliant about alot of things,except for trusting europeans and teaching them anything. Who knows if this is how they used 0.
what you guys are missing in your own examples is that one of you still has 10 free blunts in one of your examples.
And once you mention "1 million stacks of nothing" you have now created "something" whether its the thought of 1 million stacks of something,or whether you decide to create 1 million imaginary stacks that you would have to technically consider "nothing". But that 0 no matter how we slice it is no longer pure,there is only one pure 0. These and the word problem with the apples that still leaves baskets?I think it proves the point that depending on how you word it,there is something left behind.
The zero is not being kept pure in many of these instances.

If you are calculating 0.2 x 1.1, is the zero there "pure"? Your idea of a "pure" zero doesn't make sense mathematically, only conceptually. Mathematically, you need to have a 0 that means 0 as a placeholder or you can't use decimals, percentages, etc. at all.

Low-key this is the direction we're going with the whole "It's my belief" thing. I fear the day where the very fundamentals of our understanding of science, maths, logic, etc...will be be brushed away because someone made a couple youtube videos. Flat-Earth theory, creationism, alternative maths, the list is only gonna get longer.

Yup.

 

[Fly]

The Moors were brilliant about alot of things,except for trusting europeans and teaching them anything. Who knows if this is how they used 0.
what you guys are missing in your own examples is that one of you still has 10 free blunts in one of your examples.
And once you mention "1 million stacks of nothing" you have now created "something" whether its the thought of 1 million stacks of something,or whether you decide to create 1 million imaginary stacks that you would have to technically consider "nothing". But that 0 no matter how we slice it is no longer pure,there is only one pure 0. These and the word problem with the apples that still leaves baskets?I think it proves the point that depending on how you word it,there is something left behind.
The zero is not being kept pure in many of these instances.

Now if folks can understand this,I think we have just succesfully explained god,and proved many of you athiest should be able to explain the concept of god and how he works. Exactly like the scenario of 1 million stacks,the creation of something based purely on thought. Not to get off topic but this just came to mind.

the fact is you and the dudes you were arguing with are all just thinking about it the wrong way and overcomplicating the problem

for example, the basket question should only be worded like this:

"If i have 2 baskets with no apples in either, how many apples do i have in the baskets altogether?" 2 x 0 = 0

or

"if i have no apples and 2 baskets with no apples in either, how many apples do i have in the baskets altogether?" 0 x 2 = 0

it's literally that simple.

 

[Sccit]

The Moors were brilliant about alot of things,except for trusting europeans and teaching them anything. Who knows if this is how they used 0.
what you guys are missing in your own examples is that one of you still has 10 free blunts in one of your examples.
And once you mention "1 million stacks of nothing" you have now created "something" whether its the thought of 1 million stacks of something,or whether you decide to create 1 million imaginary stacks that you would have to technically consider "nothing". But that 0 no matter how we slice it is no longer pure,there is only one pure 0. These and the word problem with the apples that still leaves baskets?I think it proves the point that depending on how you word it,there is something left behind.
The zero is not being kept pure in many of these instances.

Now if folks can understand this,I think we have just succesfully explained god,and proved many of you athiest should be able to explain the concept of god and how he works. Exactly like the scenario of 1 million stacks,the creation of something based purely on thought. Not to get off topic but this just came to mind.

THE 10 FREE BLUNTS WOULD ONLY MATTER IF YOU WERE ADDING .. NOT MULTIPLYING LOL

THE WHOLE POINT OF MULTIPLYING IS COMIN UP WIT A SOLUTION TO YOUR PROBLEM

FOR INSTANCE, I TYPE UP CONTRACTS IN THE FIELD IM IN .. SO I USE A LOT OF MUTIPLICATION. THIS IS HOW A PROPOSAL WOULD LOOK USING ZERO

-ITEM
-QUANTITY: 10
-PRICE: $0
-TOTAL: $0

^ IMAGINE IF I USED YOUR LOGIC .. IT WOULD COME OUT TO $10 AND ID BE OVERCHARGING DUE TO MY LACK OF UNDERSTANDING MATH

OR I CAN REVERSE IT:

-ITEM
-QUANTITY: 0
-PRICE: $10
-TOTAL: $0



WHAT U ARE DOING IS CONFUSING MULTIPLICATION WITH ADDITION LOL

HOPE THIS MAKES SENSE - U MIGHT BE SO FAR INTO UR ARGUMENT THAT U RATHER KEEP TROLLIN THAN ADMIT UR WRONG, BUT IF U TRULY DONT GET IT BY NOW THEN ITS OVER FOR U

 

[Benefited]

the fact is you and the dudes you were arguing with are all just thinking about it the wrong way and overcomplicating the problem

for example, the basket question should only be worded like this:

"If i have 2 baskets with no apples in either, how many apples do i have in the baskets altogether?" 2 x 0 = 0

or

"if i have no apples and 2 baskets with no apples in either, how many apples do i have in the baskets altogether?" 0 x 2 = 0

it's literally that simple.

Your doing the same thing
The problem that you guys are running into when you write it out like this,is that you are still unable to get rid of the value of the 2 baskets,only the 0 apples remain 0.
This should basically prove what I have been saying all thread that conceptually it makes sense,so mathmatically it doesn't always make sense.

Nah breh, it doesn't work that way.

Ya'all want to destroy your illusions, try taking it a step further - calculate 1.1 times 1, or 8.0101 times 1.101, or anything else.

Create a square that is 1.1 meters by 1.1 meters, and tell me the area of the square.



If you are calculating 0.2 x 1.1, is the zero there "pure"? Your idea of a "pure" zero doesn't make sense mathematically, only conceptually. Mathematically, you need to have a 0 that means 0 as a placeholder or you can't use decimals, percentages, etc. at all.

If it makes sense conceptually,that means it probably doesn't always make sense mathmatically. I think zero makes perfectly good sense sometimes in proper context as a placeholder,I'm not wise enough to think of any other way to do it.But the only pure 0 in those word problems people keep giving is what they said they have 0 of,whether that be baskets or apples.

 

[Benefited]

THE 10 FREE BLUNTS WOULD ONLY MATTER IF YOU WERE ADDING .. NOT MULTIPLYING LOL

THE WHOLE POINT OF MULTIPLYING IS COMIN UP WIT A SOLUTION TO YOUR PROBLEM

FOR INSTANCE, I TYPE UP CONTRACTS IN THE FIELD IM IN .. SO I USE A LOT OF MUTIPLICATION. THIS IS HOW A PROPOSAL WOULD LOOK USING ZERO

-ITEM
-QUANTITY: 10
-PRICE: $0
-TOTAL: $0

^ IMAGINE IF I USED YOUR LOGIC .. IT WOULD COME OUT TO $10 AND ID BE OVERCHARGING DUE TO MY LACK OF UNDERSTANDING MATH

OR I CAN REVERSE IT:

-ITEM
-QUANTITY: 0
-PRICE: $10
-TOTAL: $0



WHAT U ARE DOING IS CONFUSING MULTIPLICATION WITH ADDITION LOL

HOPE THIS MAKES SENSE - U MIGHT BE SO FAR INTO UR ARGUMENT THAT U RATHER KEEP TROLLIN THAN ADMIT UR WRONG, BUT IF U TRULY DONT GET IT BY NOW THEN ITS OVER FOR U

I never said 0 doesn't serve a purpose,its just not always a pure "0" no matter what. Context and wording is important,
And,no,in your example you would be overcharging because the price is 0,which is seperate from the quantity.
By your logic if I called and asked how many quantities of that item you had,you should be telling me 0 as well. The 10 and the 0 are two seperate entities,the 0 will be 0 when its zero,the 10 will be 10 depending on context.

 

[Child_Of_God]

 

[Benefited]

Double nothing and you'll get 2, everyone

What if i multiply the $0 in my wallet by 1,000,000? ....I'm rich!....What about a billi?

Gotta rep you, breh.

*Takes the 1,000,0000 dollars in your wallet to the bank*

You-I would like to put my million dollars in the bank please

Bank Teller-Sure sir,and we with our new services we will begin multiplying that for you immediately.

You-yeah,okay whatever(gives her the million).

Bank Teller-Okay,we just multiplied that by 0,so your account balance is now 0

You-Well a 0 is a 0,thanks maam.


Wonder how indoctrinated and dedicated to mathmatics you nikkas will be once the banks start sneaking that into the terms and conditions

 

[Umoja]

This is what happens when slow kids are fed the notion that they are innovative.

 

[Sccit]

I never said 0 doesn't serve a purpose,its just not always a pure "0" no matter what. Context and wording is important,
And,no,in your example you would be overcharging because the price is 0,which is seperate from the quantity.
By your logic if I called and asked how many quantities of that item you had,you should be telling me 0 as well. The 10 and the 0 are two seperate entities,the 0 will be 0 when its zero,the 10 will be 10 depending on context.

 

[Fly]

Your doing the same thing
The problem that you guys are running into when you write it out like this,is that you are still unable to get rid of the value of the 2 baskets,only the 0 apples remain 0.
This should basically prove what I have been saying all thread that conceptually it makes sense,so mathmatically it doesn't always make sense.



If it makes sense conceptually,that means it probably doesn't always make sense mathmatically. I think zero makes perfectly good sense sometimes in proper context as a placeholder,I'm not wise enough to think of any other way to do it.But the only pure 0 in those word problems people keep giving is what they said they have 0 of,whether that be baskets or apples.

The value of the 2 baskets is 2, but thats not what the question is asking. its asking for the value of the apples inside of the baskets which is 0, because you have no apples.

"if i have 2 apples and no baskets, how many apples do i have in baskets altogether?" none, because you have no baskets

mathematically it always makes sense. when does it not make sense?

 

[iBrowse]

I wasn't sold on his 1x1 explanation in Terryology
but notice how most of you had to reword 2x0 it to make it feel right.
You all had to rework it to 0x2.
You can't have 2 of nothing,2 of nothing is still 2 of something.
Yes I agree 0x2 is 0. Context is important even in math.
"If I have 2 baskets full of 0 apples how many apples do I have?"
Do you not see that you still have 2 baskets?its the same concept

Thread belongs in the rafters

 

[Pete Wrigley]

2x0 = 0+0 = 0

Fukk your apples and your damn baskets, close this damn thread

 

[Hannibal Fox]

 

[iBrowse]

You can't have 2 of nothing,2 of nothing is still 2 of something Breh :Ermmm: