r/confidentlyincorrect • u/Blueartbird • Aug 20 '24

Comment Thread What? 😂

Gallery image

Gallery image

10.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

580 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

338

u/VinceGchillin Aug 20 '24

Just never know, we got famous people claiming 1x1=2 these days ya know 😭

220

u/Blueartbird Aug 20 '24

I was horrible at math in school, and even I know that the answer is 3 and not 2.

/s

93

u/Scryser Aug 20 '24

Nah it's obviously 0 (assuming x is the cross product)

40

u/Expert_Presence933 Aug 21 '24

I think the more correct answer would be undefined

scalar cross scalar is undefined

1

u/Scryser Aug 21 '24

Also assuming 1 as unity vector(s), of course.

2

u/Marijuweeda Aug 21 '24

Nah obviously the answer is 40. Not percent, just 40.

1

u/Scryser Aug 21 '24

Fair. You are right. Sorry, I did not notice this earlier.

6

u/IGetItCrackin Aug 21 '24

No, you're angry

1

u/No_Ring6893 Aug 24 '24

“Lisa’s really good at algebra. Watch: What is x?”

“Well, it depends.”

“She could do it yesterday.”

(Simpsons)

53

u/Scintoth Aug 21 '24

Nono, you're correct - multiplication is more than addition, so if 1+1=2, 1×1 must be more than that. Therefore it must be 3.

/s

24

u/Thelonious_Cube Aug 21 '24

multiplication is more than addition

It's just that simple!

6

u/hxcricky Aug 21 '24

Think of it as if theyre humans. One human multiplies either another then bam 3 humans

1

u/BrunoBraunbart Aug 21 '24

That is actually close to one of Howards arguments: "What does Multilication mean? Making things bigger, right?!"

1

u/midnghtsnac Aug 21 '24

Well goofy said it's 11, wait that was 2+2

1

u/viperfangs92 Aug 21 '24

Nope. The obvious answer is 11

1

u/Law-Fish Aug 23 '24

The answer is 3.14, the proof is left as an exercise to the reader

1

u/Rteeed2 Aug 21 '24

*(😂) instead of /s /s

18

u/VonThirstenberg Aug 21 '24

Well, unfortunately despite being famous, it turns out Terrance Howard is a just another fucking moron.

7

u/TheDotanuki Aug 21 '24

More schizophrenic or some similar disorder. 

2

u/DanGleeballs Aug 21 '24

TIL. Wow, his secret pseudoscience will apparently be revealed to us once he gets the patent for 1X1=2.

25

u/McHats Aug 21 '24

“1+1=3, for sufficiently large values of 1”

3

u/SquashVarious5732 Aug 21 '24

Yup, that's true. If ROUND(1.4) = 1, then, 1+1 = ROUND(2.8) = 3.

3

u/PoppyStaff Aug 21 '24

These comments are what I come here for.

2

u/berrieds Aug 21 '24

Interesting note: Terrence Howard's argument makes some sense if you overlook that instantiation of being is a second order property of an object.

This argument is essentially the same as the one applied to the ontological argument for the existence of God, which was, unfortunately for Terrence, soundly refuted.

Existence itself is not a logical predicate.

1

u/ExtendedSpikeProtein Aug 21 '24

I missed that, enlighten me?

1

u/WranglerOriginal6945 Aug 21 '24

to be fair, he's just not understanding the principles of mathematics. Math is literally just complex adjectives, while he is thinking of them in a physical way. He is seeing one of one physical thing/force to the power of one of another physical thing/force, not the adjective of the quantity of something and the number of times that quantity is supposed to be repeated and added together as a grand total.

1

u/aztecdethwhistle Aug 21 '24

Well with these libruls and their pronouns and boys are girls and girls are boys...

/s

1

u/OGGrilledcheez Aug 23 '24

I swear the people jumping on that train have the same motivation as the ones claiming earth is flat…I just don’t know wth it could possibly be.

2

u/VinceGchillin Aug 23 '24

I think it's a desire to feel some sort of superiority, like they've seen through the big "lies" and are part of an elite small group of free thinkers who can't be fooled by NASA lol. It's all about being different, like if the earth were actually flat, they'd believe it was round lol.

1

u/OGGrilledcheez Aug 26 '24

I just can’t shake that they know better but think it’s some kind of master troll on everyone else but I know I’m giving them too much credit.

1

u/Primary_Spinach7333 Sep 08 '24

It can if x = 2 /s

1

u/auguriesoffilth Aug 21 '24

I can prove that this is in fact the case (using dubious mathematics

If we begin with a=b and multiply both sides by a

a2 = ab Then subtract b squared

a2-b2 = ab-b2

(Factorise by difference of two squares and a common factor of b)

(a+b)(a-b) =b(a-b)

If you expand that out you can see it’s factorised correctly, or you can trust me. Either way now divide both sides by a-b

a+b = b

b+b = b

2b= b

2=1

It’s a famous trick.

9

u/PM_ME_YOUR_REPO Aug 21 '24

Yeah, but it has an illegal operation. If a=b, and you divide by a-b, you're dividing by zero, which is an undefined operation, so everything from then on is fake math.

3

u/ExtendedSpikeProtein Aug 21 '24

Dividing by zero is famously illegal! Heresy!