Terrence Howard: "This is The Best Kept SECRET in The ENTIRE WORLD!" (2024)

For the 1x1 problem, which I don't think is much of a problem if you approach it based on the fundamentals of multiplication. I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say multiplication is the number of times the addition operation is meant to be carried out on a number based on the multiplier. In other words, a x b means add 'a' , 'b' number of times. For example:
2 x 3 = Add 2, 3 times = 2+2+2 = 6
4 x 2 = Add 4, 2 times = 4+4 = 8
But when it comes to the multiplier of 1, there is practically no addition operation carried out, because you are calling the number once, whereas addition requires at least two numbers to operate upon. Hence you have that number added to nothing, and that simply returns the number. The main point however is that the addition operator requires at least two non-zero numbers to effectively operate.
For instance, in human biology, a baby only begins to form when there is a union between a sperm and an egg from a woman. However, the required "union" to begin forming a baby isn't possible with the absence of either element, because the "union" requires the presence of both elements last I checked.
In a similar vain the mathematical operator of addition needs at least two numbers in between which it can operate. Hence, multiplication by 1 only presents one number before the addition operator and nothing on the other end. Hence nothing added to the first number returns that number unchanged.
It's quite a crazy thing to try to explain, but not so much so as to ruin the foundations and principles of mathematics in my opinion.
《Edit》I think a helpful way of viewing the multiplier is to see it as a count of the number of times a number or an object is operated upon. For instance:
2x3 = sum(2, 2, 2) = 6, conversely
3x2 = sum(3, 3) = 6, and similarly
2x1 = sum(2) = 2, conversely
1x2 = sum(1, 1) = 2, hence
1x1 = sum(1) = 1
Look closely at the last three and decide if mathematically speaking 1x1=2. I personally don't see the possibility.
furthermore, when dealing with objects:
bx3 = sum(b, b, b) = 3b
bx2 = sum(b, b) = 2b
bx1 = sum(b) = 1b, or b for short.
I hope I haven't complicated it with the last part, I just thought it might help illustrate it further.
《Edit 2》
On account of the interactions with comments I've gotten to learn a bit more and attempted to understand the position of those who agree with 1x1=1+1=2.
I've also seen a few comments that attempt to use my illustration as justification for the proposition of 1x1=2, so I feel the need to make this edit while leaving the original comment unchanged in all fairness to replies already made.
Some have said that my logic of:
2x3=Add 2, 3 times=2+2+2=6 should translate as well to
1x1=Add 1, 1 time=1+1=2 as Terrence would suggest. I tried to clarify that in the original comment, and as well in the first edit, but let me give it one more go. I hope I phrase my thoughts better this time.
I think part of the confusion, especially when you multiply two of the same number is to assume that the multiplier is part of the additive process. In actuality it is only instructive about the count of the number being multiplied.
So 2x3=2+2+2, if you count the number of 2s on the right side of the equation you count 3. But 3 in itself is not being added, meaning 2x3 is not 2+3+3. Similarly 3x4=3+3+3+3, and we count 3, 4 times on the right hand side. If we switch it up 4x3=4+4+4, we count 4, 3 times.
Where I think the confusion may arise is when the numbers are the same, one may mistakenly think that the multiplier is offering more than the function of a count and think it is part of the addition.
So 2x2=2+2, but keep in mind that the second 2 is just telling us the count. And similarly 4x4=4+4+4+4, the second 4 is just the count, even though coincidentally 4 is also the number being multiplied.
Hence, 1x1=1, because the instruction is to return one INSTANCE of the first number, which is 1. Hence it doesn't follow for 1x1=1+1, because this returns two instances of 1, which is otherwise expressed as 1x2. If it is still confusing for you, then try the following according to my logic, and then afterwards attempt it with Terrence's logic:
By my logic-
4x1=4 (here count/instance/multiplier is 1)
1x4=1+1+1+1 (here count/instance/multiplier is 4)
By Terrence's logic since
1x1=1+1, hence it seems he suggests 4x1=4+1
I maintain that the laws of math and physics may be based on approximations and assumptions, but they are sufficiently adequate to refute the two mathematical arguments that Terrence highlights in his talks. If he seeks to uproot a system, then it means the alternative must surpass the first in logic, application and whatever areas that were found lacking.
As for the other things, I'm no expert in them, and I think there may be some gems worth exploring. But as hopeful as I may be that something new and exciting be discovered, I maintain a healthy mix of curiosity and skepticism. Thanks