have you ever even taken a moment to consider if he is right?

[Anonymous No.14720884]

what if 1 * 1 really does equal 2?

[Anonymous No.14720892]

Because multiplication and addition is the only possible binary operation on numbers.

[Anonymous No.14720944]

>>14720884
It just seems like he thinks multiplication of a number with itself can't be less than the addition of a number with itself, but of course it can if the number is between 0 and 2. He's just an egotistical idiot who never got past kindergarten math.

[Anonymous No.14720947]

>>14720944
>>14720892
what would be the implications if he is right tho

[Anonymous No.14720957]

>>14720947
Anything follows from a falsity.

[Anonymous No.14720995]

>>14720884
if you take one apple once, how can you have more than one apple? plant a tree with the seeds and wait?

[Anonymous No.14721009]

>>14720947
Fucking nothing. Multiplication is just one binary operation on numbers among infinite.
>>14720957
No. There is literally nothing wrong with saying 1*1 =2 and seeing where it leads.

[Anonymous No.14721028]

There is nothing wrong with defining an operation where 1*1 = 2, but such a thing should be called "Todd Multiplication" since the ordinary multiplication and addition already generates a rich structure.

[Anonymous No.14721040]

>>14721009
how are you defining "multiplication" such that 1*1=2 isn't immediately false by definition

[Anonymous No.14721041]

>>14721040
Just like that. 1#1 =2.

[Anonymous No.14721044]

>>14721041
that doesn't define multiplication, it defines 1 times 1

[Anonymous No.14721051]

>>14721044
Add more rules if you want more structure. How about distribution?
a#(b+c) = a#b+a#c

Add commutativity.
a#b=b#a.

Then we get 1#n = 1#1+...+1#1 = 2n. In mathematics anything is your playground.

[Anonymous No.14721059]

>>14721051
he put so much faith in humanity, math is only done to avoid life, pity for him

[Anonymous No.14721064]

>>14721051
so by that definition multiplying by 1 is the same as multiplying by 2? or is multiplying by 2 also different?

[Anonymous No.14721095]

>>14721064
Here apparently m#n = (1+...+1)#(1+...+1) = 1#1+...+1#1 = 2mn. Also m#1 = m#(1+0) = m#1 + m#0 hence m#0 =0.

0= m#0 = m#(1+(-1)) = m#1 + m#(-1). Hence m#(-1) = -(m#1).

It looks like # is just regular multiplication injecting a factor of 2, but Todd may have had qualms with the distributivity and commutivity rules. He would have gotten a different #.

>>14721059
This is true. We do math to escape life, not apply it to life.

[Anonymous No.14721103]

>>14721095
>grothendieck was a sexpat
kek

[Anonymous No.14721114]

>>14721103
Grothendieck call it like he see it.

[Anonymous No.14721116]

>>14721103

[Anonymous No.14721190]

>>14721009
>There is literally nothing wrong with saying 1*1 =2 and seeing where it leads.
1*1 = 2
1*1/1 = 2/1
1 = 2

[Anonymous No.14721198]

>>14721190
kek 1/1 =.5 here

[Anonymous No.14721210]

>>14721198
1/1 = 0.5
1*1/1 = 0.5
2/1 = 0.5
2 = 0.5

[Anonymous No.14721215]

>>14721210
You're obviously trolling, but here 1*1/1 = 2/1 = 2/2 = 1 if you want division to be the inverse of multiplication.

Refute my other posts if you're so adamant about being dumb.
>>14721028
>>14721051
>>14721095

[Anonymous No.14721228]

>>14721215
>but here
Where?

>1*1/1 = 2/1 = 2/2 = 1
So 1 = 0.5?

>Refute my other posts
OK.

>There is nothing wrong with defining an operation where 1*1 = 2
Non sequitur, the (false) claim is that 1 multiplied by 1 is 2.

[Anonymous No.14721255]

>>14721228
>>14721228
>Non sequitur, the (false) claim is that 1 multiplied by 1 is 2.
Is that seriously your refutation...?

Why are you even browsing /sci/? To troll the one of 3 anons on /sci/ who wasted 20k hours of their life on math? To seethe others are smarter than you? Well have at it. Keep your /sci/ you futureless dumbass.

[Anonymous No.14721265]

>>14721255
>responding to that retard
why respond

[Anonymous No.14721523]

>>14720892
multiplication is addition

[Anonymous No.14721526]

>>14720884
>add 1 1 times
>get 1
wow

[Anonymous No.14721786]

>>14721523
no they have different identities

[Anonymous No.14721788]

>>14720884
He has a micropenis

[Anonymous No.14721811]

>>14720884
>have you ever even taken a moment to consider if he is right?

The strange belief some people have that primitive cultures are actually super geniuses of some secret technology.

[Anonymous No.14721818]

People like terry are promoted by marxists as yet another attack angleon civilization

[Anonymous No.14721842]

>>14720884
Then group theory is out, all algebra works differently, everything built on that is moot, so we would've figured that out by now without even having to consider 1*1

[Anonymous No.14721849]

>>14721842
In # operation I made 1/2 identity. Semigroups are groups without identity.

[Anonymous No.14721851]

>>14720884
you dont understand a functionality that a 8 years old understand

[Anonymous No.14721908]

>>14721095
>>14721051
>>14721028
that's actually really fucking cool.

[Anonymous No.14721912]

>>14720957
Is that the principle of explosion you're getting at here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
We don't have to deal with that here since we literally define 1*1=2 So it is a true statement lol.

[Anonymous No.14721951]

>>14721255
>Is that seriously your refutation...?
Yes. Where does Terrence Howard say he is defining a new operation? You can define whatever your want, doesn't change that multiplication is defined a particular way and 1*1 = 2 is a falsity from which anything follows.

[Anonymous No.14721963]

>>14721912
>Is that the principle of explosion you're getting at here?
Is the thing I just described the thing I'm talking about? Why are you asking silly questions?

>We don't have to deal with that here since we literally define 1*1=2
Who is "we?" I didn't do any such thing and neither did Howard.

[Anonymous No.14721973]

>>14721963
Howards paper is crankery, but for the reason he doesn't understand what it means to multiply.

[Anonymous No.14721982]

>>14721973
Correct, he doesn't understand what it means. That is not the same as defining something else.

[Anonymous No.14721983]

>>14721963
I didn't know someone legit thought that 1*1=2
I thought the question was if 1*1=2 what would be the consequences of that.

[Anonymous No.14721986]

>>14721983
I'm sorry you had to experience that.

[Anonymous No.14722002]

what the fuck are you guys even talking about??

[Anonymous No.14722007]

>>14721983
Todd made a paper saying 1*1=2 which mathematicially speaking is perfectly fine, but he went about it in complete ignorance and then claims it has serious consequences which it doesn't. Then >>14721951
butts in and says "you can't say 1*1 =2 cause 1*1 =1 by convention so you get a contradiction of convention"

[Anonymous No.14722010]

>>14722002
Uh oh a cat poster: a well-known symbol of mathematicial monstrosity. Watch out, real heavy weight this guy.

[Anonymous No.14722193]

>>14722007
this random faggot actor talked at oxford WTF???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca1vIYmGyYA

[Anonymous No.14724066]

>>14722007
>Todd made a paper saying 1*1=2 which mathematicially speaking is perfectly fine
No.

[Anonymous No.14724187]

>>14722002
terryology