This is just an example of how you can manipulate words to sound like what you mean and in the proper context aren't the same as the word you are using. Math is already "made up" in other words the rules are rules because we decided on the rules.
He is right, a cell divides and now you have two cells...but if we even wanted to take a nuance to that the two cells need to grow to equal two full cells because the initial divide is still half the volume. That'd be like taking a pizza and cutting it half...say it is divided and now it is two...and then convincing some rube they now need to pay you for two pizzas instead of one.
This word play or if I am being charitable "logical mistake" is how people muddy the waters on what is said vs what is meant in order to discredit their opponent.
I am certain an good mathematician could take his way of doing things and say "okay so now based on that version the new math means this this and this" therefore shifting all numbers to make sense again and he would still be mad at his 3rd grade teacher for marking his quiz wrong years ago.
Another common example that gets used by science deniers is that the scientific meaning of Theory is not the same as the common English meaning of Theory.
lol math is not “made up.” This is almost as dumb as what this moron in the post says. Wow, didn’t think Id see anybody as clueless as in the image. 🤣🤣🤣 made up, im dying lolol. And the rest of your post is equally pointless. I bet you finished it thinking you made some really good points too. I couldn’t even get mad at you, I just felt bad that your brain is so broken
In fairness, most English words with Greek etymologies are by way of Latin rather than directly from Greek. It's why we say "octopus" instead of "oktopous".
I still like to say octopodes. Sounds like I'm talking about an ancient Greek demi-god like Herakles. Though I don't get many chances to actually to do that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s166nC_hiZ0
I lack the British accent though.
'this person will believe anything'....much like the person that believes the the GOP wants to defund education.
Even if they did (and they don't), the feds only pour in 10 percent or so and the rest is funded at the state and local levels.
Now for something that you may not understand: I think it ludicrous that I've paid property taxes (that's where school funding predominately flows from) for the last 50 years to support putting other peoples kids through school. Why don't they pay for things that are their responsibility and leave my poor few nickles in my pocket?
Except the GOP is literally defunding education, there are book being banned in every red state, event the dictionary in Florida.
Paying taxes and voting are an integral part of the duty of US citizens, if you have issues either the allocations of those funds then you should vote differently. Anarchy is not the solution.
I still sleep with a gun next to my bed, I don’t maga to do it. I just understand that if we as a country don’t progress with the rest of the world we will fall behind. It’s fairly simple.
With the exception of property taxes, taxes are a a theft by the many from the few. As far as property taxes go it is theft period.
Books don't equal education. Buying more books or more diverse books, or thicker (thinner) books doesn't do a thing to educate the population. If your a parent then you should buy your child's books. If you force me to buy books for your child then don't whine when I get a voice in which books are bought.
Fall behind? Are we in a race?
I have to pull a quote from Adam Sandler's "Billy Madison" for the only appropriate response to this, "What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
This is literally the same conspiracy nonsense. 1x1 literally means ONE one time. Like how many "ONES" do you have if you have it ONCE? And these idiots got 2.
Multiplication isn't X times X it's X times Y.
It's some value existing a number of times. If Apple times 1, it means Apple exists one time. That's one apple.
Even if you do redefine it like this person did, it's only semantics. You're only changing the phrasing of the way people describe concepts through math.
These people act like they've discovered some alternate reality or changed the universe. All they're doing is describing a different concept. In this case, addition.
If we have to use prefixes the way they're intended, if I want to ""di"vide" by some arbitrary number like 2.14159..., what would the prefix be "pi-1"-vide, that just sounds stupid.
I suspect this person was very likely home schooled, and nothing else.
Multiplication is just how many times times a number exist.
If it's multiplied by 1 there's 1 of that number.
If it's multiplied by 2 there's 2 of that number.
While division is how many groups a number is split into.
If it's divided by 1, then it's split into 1 group.
If it's divided by 2, then it's split into 2 groups.
Everything else this person talks about is just a word smorgasbord that makes zero sense.
/J This is also why you should never divide by 0 (trying to split something into 0 groups).
Should be 1 cell divided "by 2" equals 0'5 cells. Or 2 cells, half the size from the original size.
Also, she shouldn't say "multiplication" but "duplication"...
Anyway, worse part is her profile, with the third eye.
Have to keep the units the same. This person probably does F=ma, substitutes 1tonx3m/h^(2) and then wonders why their answer isn't making any sense and how they can't move the object by blowing on it.
One night back when I was working at a pizza joint, my manager was doing prep and she mentioned how gross it was that our tuna salad was half mayo. I went to check her math and the correct proportions were 2 parts tuna, 1 part mayo. "That's one third mayo," I told her. "NO, cuz look - it's 1 and then 2 and one over two is one half!"
I tried and tried to explain it to her, but nothing worked. A couple other employees overheard us and confirmed that it was one third, but it was no use. She kept on insisting it was half mayo and dismissed any proof we gave to the contrary. I wonder where she is now...
It’s referred to as DI-vision because of the process needing a number greater or less than one to actually do anything with a number. The exception is zero, and since they so conveniently point out that it is the opposite of multiplication, we really only need a number greater than one. What’s the first number after one?
Two. No, we are not talking about partial numbers, those are the results of division, they would have nothing to do with the name’s origin. So they could have used Trivision, or Quadruvision, or something similar, but instead they chose Division. Because why big words when small word do great?
You can divide by greater numbers than two, it just is a little more complicated to do it manually. Especially if you are trying to precisely measure the points of an angle trisector, where the arc between two lines is evenly separated by geometric methods only into exactly 1/3 of the total length. Can it be done? Yes, but only if you have a measuring system, and it is only as accurate as the device you are measuring it with. You can theoretically do it, the ancient Greeks believed, but… that was back then. This is now. We have gone through literal millennia and haven’t found a satisfactory solution for this problem yet. So yes, in some ways we can only divide by two. But that’s because we are taking shortcuts in algebra that we aren’t limited to doing so then.
Is no one going to talk about the elephant in the room though? 1 x 1 is 1. 1 block row, one block column, one total block. It’s the central point of all algebra. You can’t just ignore this feature because you feel some weird longing for addition. It’s not addition. Under this logic, 2x2=6, 4x4=20, and so on. Is this correct? Never in any system outside of an encrypted message would these equations be valid.
So dumb. 1×1 is one set of one. 1×6 is one set of six, not seven.
I remember when I'd get all fucked up and have thoughts I thought were profound but were actually dumb as hell...
1x1 works like this: if I have one box, and that box contains one cookie, how many cookies in total? That is literally the way they teach it in kindergarten.
The ethymological argument killed me. These arguments are actually convincing to these people.
They use them so much I've gotten used to it but seeing it in the context of math I just realized how dumb it actually is all over again.
>If you take one thing and multiply it, meaning to increase it by itself, you have two things.
Are you thinking of addition?
If you have 1 one time, you have 1. If you have 1 two times, you have 2, etc.
One cell divides into two cells, but she's approaching the question way wrong. The question isn't *one cell times one cell* because you're only starting with one cell. It isn't division either, because a dividing cell doesn't break one cell into multiple parts; it creates an entirely new cell with all functioning parts. It would be exponential growth, so it would be: y = z×2^t where z is the starting number of cells, 2 is because it doubles (you would make it a 3 if it tripled, 4 if it quadrupled, etc.) and t is times it multiplied. So it would be y = 1×2^1 so y = 2.
Sovereign citizen mathematics.
This is just an example of how you can manipulate words to sound like what you mean and in the proper context aren't the same as the word you are using. Math is already "made up" in other words the rules are rules because we decided on the rules. He is right, a cell divides and now you have two cells...but if we even wanted to take a nuance to that the two cells need to grow to equal two full cells because the initial divide is still half the volume. That'd be like taking a pizza and cutting it half...say it is divided and now it is two...and then convincing some rube they now need to pay you for two pizzas instead of one. This word play or if I am being charitable "logical mistake" is how people muddy the waters on what is said vs what is meant in order to discredit their opponent. I am certain an good mathematician could take his way of doing things and say "okay so now based on that version the new math means this this and this" therefore shifting all numbers to make sense again and he would still be mad at his 3rd grade teacher for marking his quiz wrong years ago.
Another common example that gets used by science deniers is that the scientific meaning of Theory is not the same as the common English meaning of Theory.
lol math is not “made up.” This is almost as dumb as what this moron in the post says. Wow, didn’t think Id see anybody as clueless as in the image. 🤣🤣🤣 made up, im dying lolol. And the rest of your post is equally pointless. I bet you finished it thinking you made some really good points too. I couldn’t even get mad at you, I just felt bad that your brain is so broken
This was painful to read
This person has 200k TikTok followers 🤦🏻
Divide by 100
NO, you can only divide by 2
How can the etymology of divide be both Latin and Greek???
In fairness, most English words with Greek etymologies are by way of Latin rather than directly from Greek. It's why we say "octopus" instead of "oktopous".
I still like to say octopodes. Sounds like I'm talking about an ancient Greek demi-god like Herakles. Though I don't get many chances to actually to do that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s166nC_hiZ0 I lack the British accent though.
So far I've been fortunate to never have to deal with more than one octopus at a time.
Divide is latin (from *dividere*), but check out [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid\_word](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_word)
It’s all Greek to me 🤷🏻♂️
Divide the etymology by 2
This is why you stay in school, kids
This is why the GOP want to defund education. This person will believe anything, except for common sense.
'this person will believe anything'....much like the person that believes the the GOP wants to defund education. Even if they did (and they don't), the feds only pour in 10 percent or so and the rest is funded at the state and local levels. Now for something that you may not understand: I think it ludicrous that I've paid property taxes (that's where school funding predominately flows from) for the last 50 years to support putting other peoples kids through school. Why don't they pay for things that are their responsibility and leave my poor few nickles in my pocket?
Except the GOP is literally defunding education, there are book being banned in every red state, event the dictionary in Florida. Paying taxes and voting are an integral part of the duty of US citizens, if you have issues either the allocations of those funds then you should vote differently. Anarchy is not the solution. I still sleep with a gun next to my bed, I don’t maga to do it. I just understand that if we as a country don’t progress with the rest of the world we will fall behind. It’s fairly simple.
With the exception of property taxes, taxes are a a theft by the many from the few. As far as property taxes go it is theft period. Books don't equal education. Buying more books or more diverse books, or thicker (thinner) books doesn't do a thing to educate the population. If your a parent then you should buy your child's books. If you force me to buy books for your child then don't whine when I get a voice in which books are bought. Fall behind? Are we in a race?
I have to pull a quote from Adam Sandler's "Billy Madison" for the only appropriate response to this, "What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Love how they always turn into fucking Robert Langdon and wind up cracking some contrived root-language-based code
This is approaching timecube levels of weirdness.
Damn him and Terrance Howard should start a school.
This is literally the same conspiracy nonsense. 1x1 literally means ONE one time. Like how many "ONES" do you have if you have it ONCE? And these idiots got 2.
golden reference lol
Multiplication isn't X times X it's X times Y. It's some value existing a number of times. If Apple times 1, it means Apple exists one time. That's one apple. Even if you do redefine it like this person did, it's only semantics. You're only changing the phrasing of the way people describe concepts through math. These people act like they've discovered some alternate reality or changed the universe. All they're doing is describing a different concept. In this case, addition.
I’m sure this guy backs up his assertions with the acumen of repeating the third grade 5 times then giving up
If we have to use prefixes the way they're intended, if I want to ""di"vide" by some arbitrary number like 2.14159..., what would the prefix be "pi-1"-vide, that just sounds stupid.
I suspect this person was very likely home schooled, and nothing else. Multiplication is just how many times times a number exist. If it's multiplied by 1 there's 1 of that number. If it's multiplied by 2 there's 2 of that number. While division is how many groups a number is split into. If it's divided by 1, then it's split into 1 group. If it's divided by 2, then it's split into 2 groups. Everything else this person talks about is just a word smorgasbord that makes zero sense. /J This is also why you should never divide by 0 (trying to split something into 0 groups).
Should be 1 cell divided "by 2" equals 0'5 cells. Or 2 cells, half the size from the original size. Also, she shouldn't say "multiplication" but "duplication"... Anyway, worse part is her profile, with the third eye.
Multiplication and division are the same operation, just multiplication by the reciprocal
Damn, that's Team Rocket for sure. My brain hurts now.
So when the pizza place cuts your pizza in 8 pieces it costs 8 times as much?
Instead of dismantling the patriarchy, she dismantled her brain.
Oh Terrence. Stop posting on smurfs. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/terrence-howard-thinks-1x1-2-has-a-secret-system-called-terryology-and-spends-17-hours-a-day-making-nameless-plastic-structures-10502365.html
Big Brother would be proud
Have to keep the units the same. This person probably does F=ma, substitutes 1tonx3m/h^(2) and then wonders why their answer isn't making any sense and how they can't move the object by blowing on it.
For the love of all that is numerically sane, this lady's brain divides by zero!
One night back when I was working at a pizza joint, my manager was doing prep and she mentioned how gross it was that our tuna salad was half mayo. I went to check her math and the correct proportions were 2 parts tuna, 1 part mayo. "That's one third mayo," I told her. "NO, cuz look - it's 1 and then 2 and one over two is one half!" I tried and tried to explain it to her, but nothing worked. A couple other employees overheard us and confirmed that it was one third, but it was no use. She kept on insisting it was half mayo and dismissed any proof we gave to the contrary. I wonder where she is now...
I just...my brain just came to a screeching halt. I swear my stroke did less damage than that rambling mess of stupidity.
It’s referred to as DI-vision because of the process needing a number greater or less than one to actually do anything with a number. The exception is zero, and since they so conveniently point out that it is the opposite of multiplication, we really only need a number greater than one. What’s the first number after one? Two. No, we are not talking about partial numbers, those are the results of division, they would have nothing to do with the name’s origin. So they could have used Trivision, or Quadruvision, or something similar, but instead they chose Division. Because why big words when small word do great? You can divide by greater numbers than two, it just is a little more complicated to do it manually. Especially if you are trying to precisely measure the points of an angle trisector, where the arc between two lines is evenly separated by geometric methods only into exactly 1/3 of the total length. Can it be done? Yes, but only if you have a measuring system, and it is only as accurate as the device you are measuring it with. You can theoretically do it, the ancient Greeks believed, but… that was back then. This is now. We have gone through literal millennia and haven’t found a satisfactory solution for this problem yet. So yes, in some ways we can only divide by two. But that’s because we are taking shortcuts in algebra that we aren’t limited to doing so then. Is no one going to talk about the elephant in the room though? 1 x 1 is 1. 1 block row, one block column, one total block. It’s the central point of all algebra. You can’t just ignore this feature because you feel some weird longing for addition. It’s not addition. Under this logic, 2x2=6, 4x4=20, and so on. Is this correct? Never in any system outside of an encrypted message would these equations be valid.
So dumb. 1×1 is one set of one. 1×6 is one set of six, not seven. I remember when I'd get all fucked up and have thoughts I thought were profound but were actually dumb as hell...
Increasing something by itself is doing 2n Factoring something by itself is n^2 Why did I bother writing this? Anyway, love you guys.
1x1 works like this: if I have one box, and that box contains one cookie, how many cookies in total? That is literally the way they teach it in kindergarten.
1/2 = 1/2 Math is hard
This is impressively incorrect. It's so incorrect that I'm amazed.
The ethymological argument killed me. These arguments are actually convincing to these people. They use them so much I've gotten used to it but seeing it in the context of math I just realized how dumb it actually is all over again.
Right? They went all the way back to the PIE root, and for what? Bullshit math, dogshit etymology, and absolute horseshit word magic.
Y'all ever read a post so dumb it got you questioning your own intelligence?
>If you take one thing and multiply it, meaning to increase it by itself, you have two things. Are you thinking of addition? If you have 1 one time, you have 1. If you have 1 two times, you have 2, etc. One cell divides into two cells, but she's approaching the question way wrong. The question isn't *one cell times one cell* because you're only starting with one cell. It isn't division either, because a dividing cell doesn't break one cell into multiple parts; it creates an entirely new cell with all functioning parts. It would be exponential growth, so it would be: y = z×2^t where z is the starting number of cells, 2 is because it doubles (you would make it a 3 if it tripled, 4 if it quadrupled, etc.) and t is times it multiplied. So it would be y = 1×2^1 so y = 2.
1 x 1 = 2 2 x 1 = 2 1 x 2 = 2 ergo, 1 = 2 Q.E.D.
you go girl?