Metatron | Terryology is A JOKE! I Proved Terrence Howard WRONG @metatronyt | Uploaded June 2024 | Updated October 2024, 3 hours ago.
If you wish to support my work and help me continue to tell it how it is, please consider supporting my work on Patreon patreon.com/themetatron
Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize! Support freedom and get your prefered content!:
youtube.com/channel/UCIjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOw/join
Link to related videos
youtube.com/watch?v=QdxpwOEC4fk&t=49s
youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4&t=16s
youtube.com/watch?v=g197xdRZsW0&t=22s
Terrence Howard, known for his acting roles in popular films like "Iron Man," has developed his own unconventional theories about mathematics. He calls his theory "Terryology," I know, and it revolves around his belief that 1 x 1 = 2, rather than 1, as is universally accepted in mathematics.
Here are some key points about Terrence Howard's mathematical ideas:
1. Howard argues that the current understanding of multiplication is flawed. He claims that 1 x 1 should equal 2 because, in his view, the square root of 4 is 2, and the square root of 2 is 1.
2. He has developed a "proof" for his claim using plastic shapes he calls "Terryhedrons," which he believes demonstrate his theory.
3. Howard has stated that he wants to "reeducate the world" about mathematics and that he plans to publish a book detailing his ideas.
4. He claims that his theory has applications in various fields, including space travel and energy production.
It's important to note that Howard's views on mathematics are not accepted by the scientific community. His claims go against fundamental principles that have been rigorously proven and applied successfully for centuries.
Despite the lack of scientific support, Howard remains passionate about his ideas and continues to promote them through interviews such as with Joe Rogan, and social media. Let's keep in mind that his theory has garnered attention primarily due to his celebrity status rather than any scientific merit.
From a psychological stand point, this is the results of an extremely narcissistic mind I mean, he called his new mathematics after himself, and my guess would be that this entire study is probably motivated by social cognition.
I want to focus on two fundamental fallacies within his theory. One is the core foundation 1x1 equals 2. That's the "what". Once we destroy that, I'll show you something he said, a specific word which revealed it all. That's the "why".
So His problem may appear mathematical at first but the reality is that the core of his discussion is with language not with maths . The surrounding discussion is instead mostly philosophical, as I'll demonstrate in the latter section
But let's beging with the logics of it.
Logically the 1x1=1 isn't a problem at all.There is no logical fallacy within this operation. You see the second integer, 1 doesn't represent a different number nor entity, it represents the self. If you try and multiply 1 by well itself, which is the logics behind this operation, it doesn't add anything because there is no second element nor anything separate is being added to it. In this specific case, this is a mirror. Instead, he sees this second element described as 1 as a separate entity. It isn't. And I can't believe I have to say this but this isn't an addition.
But since all we are talking about now is indeed maths, how is this a linguistic problem?
He is fixating on the meaning of the word to multiply, upon which he builds the rest of his theory.
Thing is thought,this doesn't fail to satiffy the term multiply because in mathematics, differently from in general use, the verb to multipy has a very specific meaning which denotes an exact operation. It does not have the broader meaning you ascribe to it which is the usage in a general sense of the term.
What this man is failing to understand due to the fact that he has no linguistic training, is that words do not just have one single meaning attached to them. He expects that single meaning ascribed to "multiply" to carry over and fit perfectly every comunicative case. The reason why that is an inappropriate and inaccurate statements/expectation is because of the existence in languages of the category of words called "polysemic". Multiply is a polysemic word.
A polysemic word is a lexical item that possesses multiple distinct, yet related meanings or semantic variants. Polysemic words exhibit a phenomenon in which a single linguistic form is associated with several interrelated senses or interpretations.
The semantic variations of a polysemic word often arise through cognitive processes such as metaphorical extension, metonymy, or specialization of meaning. These processes allow the word to acquire new senses while retaining a connection to its original or core meaning. The relationships between the different senses of a polysemic word can be based on various factors, including similarity, contiguity, or functional association.
If you wish to support my work and help me continue to tell it how it is, please consider supporting my work on Patreon patreon.com/themetatron
Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize! Support freedom and get your prefered content!:
youtube.com/channel/UCIjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOw/join
Link to related videos
youtube.com/watch?v=QdxpwOEC4fk&t=49s
youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4&t=16s
youtube.com/watch?v=g197xdRZsW0&t=22s
Terrence Howard, known for his acting roles in popular films like "Iron Man," has developed his own unconventional theories about mathematics. He calls his theory "Terryology," I know, and it revolves around his belief that 1 x 1 = 2, rather than 1, as is universally accepted in mathematics.
Here are some key points about Terrence Howard's mathematical ideas:
1. Howard argues that the current understanding of multiplication is flawed. He claims that 1 x 1 should equal 2 because, in his view, the square root of 4 is 2, and the square root of 2 is 1.
2. He has developed a "proof" for his claim using plastic shapes he calls "Terryhedrons," which he believes demonstrate his theory.
3. Howard has stated that he wants to "reeducate the world" about mathematics and that he plans to publish a book detailing his ideas.
4. He claims that his theory has applications in various fields, including space travel and energy production.
It's important to note that Howard's views on mathematics are not accepted by the scientific community. His claims go against fundamental principles that have been rigorously proven and applied successfully for centuries.
Despite the lack of scientific support, Howard remains passionate about his ideas and continues to promote them through interviews such as with Joe Rogan, and social media. Let's keep in mind that his theory has garnered attention primarily due to his celebrity status rather than any scientific merit.
From a psychological stand point, this is the results of an extremely narcissistic mind I mean, he called his new mathematics after himself, and my guess would be that this entire study is probably motivated by social cognition.
I want to focus on two fundamental fallacies within his theory. One is the core foundation 1x1 equals 2. That's the "what". Once we destroy that, I'll show you something he said, a specific word which revealed it all. That's the "why".
So His problem may appear mathematical at first but the reality is that the core of his discussion is with language not with maths . The surrounding discussion is instead mostly philosophical, as I'll demonstrate in the latter section
But let's beging with the logics of it.
Logically the 1x1=1 isn't a problem at all.There is no logical fallacy within this operation. You see the second integer, 1 doesn't represent a different number nor entity, it represents the self. If you try and multiply 1 by well itself, which is the logics behind this operation, it doesn't add anything because there is no second element nor anything separate is being added to it. In this specific case, this is a mirror. Instead, he sees this second element described as 1 as a separate entity. It isn't. And I can't believe I have to say this but this isn't an addition.
But since all we are talking about now is indeed maths, how is this a linguistic problem?
He is fixating on the meaning of the word to multiply, upon which he builds the rest of his theory.
Thing is thought,this doesn't fail to satiffy the term multiply because in mathematics, differently from in general use, the verb to multipy has a very specific meaning which denotes an exact operation. It does not have the broader meaning you ascribe to it which is the usage in a general sense of the term.
What this man is failing to understand due to the fact that he has no linguistic training, is that words do not just have one single meaning attached to them. He expects that single meaning ascribed to "multiply" to carry over and fit perfectly every comunicative case. The reason why that is an inappropriate and inaccurate statements/expectation is because of the existence in languages of the category of words called "polysemic". Multiply is a polysemic word.
A polysemic word is a lexical item that possesses multiple distinct, yet related meanings or semantic variants. Polysemic words exhibit a phenomenon in which a single linguistic form is associated with several interrelated senses or interpretations.
The semantic variations of a polysemic word often arise through cognitive processes such as metaphorical extension, metonymy, or specialization of meaning. These processes allow the word to acquire new senses while retaining a connection to its original or core meaning. The relationships between the different senses of a polysemic word can be based on various factors, including similarity, contiguity, or functional association.
