You missed his point. Let me explain it this way for you. Let's say you have two sticks. You can then use them in an equation. 1 stick X 1 stick, 1 stick + 1 stick, etc.
He is saying that in every such equation, your starting point was having two sticks. Now, after the equation is executed... guess what, those same two sticks still exist. One of the sticks does not magically disappear! So, in the equation of 1X1=1... he is saying we magically make one of the sticks (1s) disappear to get the answer of 1. The fact really is you will still have two sticks... so how can the answer = only 1 stick?
No it doesn't help lol. If you have 5 sticks in each hand and crunch the equation 5x5 you're hopefully going to arrive at 25. You're likely not going to spontaneously have 25 sticks in your hands though. Same for 1 stick in each hand doing 1-1. The second stick doesn't vaporize out of your hand, you're still holding 2 sticks, but 1-1 sure as shit ain't 2. It's nonsense
edit: Lemme probe further. If 1x1 is 2, because of 2 sticks in your hand. Does 1x2=3 because of 3 sticks in your hand? Likewise for 1x3=4, 1x4=5 etc. What if we take I dno some really crazy complex math, say... 3x3. Now you have 6 sticks in your hands, 3 in each hand. So is 3x3 6?, or 9? Or since 3x3 can also be understood as 1 times 3, 3 times. and 1x3=4, so is it 4, 3 times, which is 12? Though 4x3 is also only 7 sticks in my hand, so it's almost certainly 6, 7, 9, or 12.
You are not incorrect Sir. He didn't refute that all of the base 10 math didn't work. It only falls apart when you use "0" or "1."
It is akin to the more complicated math used in quantum physics and particle physics. Each, independently prove-out their positions. Both prove true. The math proves each one. Yet, when you try to reconcile them together, the math doesn't work but instead, stand in conflict to each other -even though, they are both describing the exact same thing. So, are they both wrong or both right? As Terrance stated, that is why nobody has been able to come up with a working unified theory. Was it the state of the universe that prevents a unified theory from being discovered or something else... like the math used to construct them? Or was it (as he stated) their original zenith (assumption) from which their evaluation started from? I would argue both.
Expand your thinking and give the concept a bit more due diligence before you disregard it as junk.
but doesn't 1x1 work out just the same as 1x5? You never add the single stick in the other hand. It's not 2, the same as it's not 6. Both equations follow the same logic. If you have to swap to addition for the 1x1 you're doing addition, not multiplication. Does 1x2=3? I'll try to expand my thinking and conduct some due dilligence, are there any books or repubtable people delving into the 1x1 = 2 theorem? lol
As I said you are not incorrect... but your correctness is not an absolute. I'll provide two more examples.
Two people describing a chair. One underneath looking up. One above looking down. Their descriptions will be completely different... yet, both are true, yet completely different truths. It would seem they are each describing different objects. However it is the same chair. Only the perspectives are different. Source: "The Assumptions"
Zero. Zero represents nothing. The absence of something. Non-existent. Try as hard as you can to imagine nothing. Imagine you existing but nothing else. Hard to do right? You see, Terrance was describing universal dichotomy. If nothing existed in contrast to you then you couldn't be tall or short. Fat or skinny. Smart or dumb, Here or there? You couldn't go up or down, left or right, be right or wrong. The point being, there is no such condition where "nothing exists" thus how can you have a numeral (0) representing a state that can not exist? We are constructed in a dichotomy and by that very same dichotomy.
You missed his point. Let me explain it this way for you. Let's say you have two sticks. You can then use them in an equation. 1 stick X 1 stick, 1 stick + 1 stick, etc.
He is saying that in every such equation, your starting point was having two sticks. Now, after the equation is executed... guess what, those same two sticks still exist. One of the sticks does not magically disappear! So, in the equation of 1X1=1... he is saying we magically make one of the sticks (1s) disappear to get the answer of 1. The fact really is you will still have two sticks... so how can the answer = only 1 stick?
Does that help?
No, it does not help. It's wrong. You, too, lack an understanding of how math works.
All righty then. Yea, dem number thangs gets me real mess up in my's small brain.
No it doesn't help lol. If you have 5 sticks in each hand and crunch the equation 5x5 you're hopefully going to arrive at 25. You're likely not going to spontaneously have 25 sticks in your hands though. Same for 1 stick in each hand doing 1-1. The second stick doesn't vaporize out of your hand, you're still holding 2 sticks, but 1-1 sure as shit ain't 2. It's nonsense
edit: Lemme probe further. If 1x1 is 2, because of 2 sticks in your hand. Does 1x2=3 because of 3 sticks in your hand? Likewise for 1x3=4, 1x4=5 etc. What if we take I dno some really crazy complex math, say... 3x3. Now you have 6 sticks in your hands, 3 in each hand. So is 3x3 6?, or 9? Or since 3x3 can also be understood as 1 times 3, 3 times. and 1x3=4, so is it 4, 3 times, which is 12? Though 4x3 is also only 7 sticks in my hand, so it's almost certainly 6, 7, 9, or 12.
You are not incorrect Sir. He didn't refute that all of the base 10 math didn't work. It only falls apart when you use "0" or "1."
It is akin to the more complicated math used in quantum physics and particle physics. Each, independently prove-out their positions. Both prove true. The math proves each one. Yet, when you try to reconcile them together, the math doesn't work but instead, stand in conflict to each other -even though, they are both describing the exact same thing. So, are they both wrong or both right? As Terrance stated, that is why nobody has been able to come up with a working unified theory. Was it the state of the universe that prevents a unified theory from being discovered or something else... like the math used to construct them? Or was it (as he stated) their original zenith (assumption) from which their evaluation started from? I would argue both.
Expand your thinking and give the concept a bit more due diligence before you disregard it as junk.
but doesn't 1x1 work out just the same as 1x5? You never add the single stick in the other hand. It's not 2, the same as it's not 6. Both equations follow the same logic. If you have to swap to addition for the 1x1 you're doing addition, not multiplication. Does 1x2=3? I'll try to expand my thinking and conduct some due dilligence, are there any books or repubtable people delving into the 1x1 = 2 theorem? lol
As I said you are not incorrect... but your correctness is not an absolute. I'll provide two more examples.
Two people describing a chair. One underneath looking up. One above looking down. Their descriptions will be completely different... yet, both are true, yet completely different truths. It would seem they are each describing different objects. However it is the same chair. Only the perspectives are different. Source: "The Assumptions"
Zero. Zero represents nothing. The absence of something. Non-existent. Try as hard as you can to imagine nothing. Imagine you existing but nothing else. Hard to do right? You see, Terrance was describing universal dichotomy. If nothing existed in contrast to you then you couldn't be tall or short. Fat or skinny. Smart or dumb, Here or there? You couldn't go up or down, left or right, be right or wrong. The point being, there is no such condition where "nothing exists" thus how can you have a numeral (0) representing a state that can not exist? We are constructed in a dichotomy and by that very same dichotomy.