Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 08:18:35 UTC No. 16202192

>>16202020
But there's only one of this thread.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 13:17:15 UTC No. 16202472

>>16202020
I was looking for a post like this one, he's shit is very new to me and keep my mind open. We know 100% he's right if he ets clipped

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 14:00:35 UTC No. 16202506

>>16202020
Tyrone works for 1 hour and gets paid 1 dollar for that work. How much does Tyrone make? Show your working.
Assume that Tyrone won't steal anything or murder the white person paying him to do the work. Difficult I know, but lets also assume that that Tyrone does in fact work for the full hour and doesn't get bored after 1 minute and start stealing shit or sleeping.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:49:39 UTC No. 16202704

>>16202020
>I bet you don't have any pantents
you don't even have a parent

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:55:25 UTC No. 16202712

>>16202020
Can you engineer a bridge assuming 1 x 1 = 2? Try it and get back to us.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:55:39 UTC No. 16202713

>>16202020
I do have a patent actually.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 18:23:22 UTC No. 16202805

>>16202020
he's not even wrong

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 18:27:52 UTC No. 16202807

>>16202020
>I bet you don't have any pantents
I bet you don't have a grammar.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 21:00:27 UTC No. 16202995

>>16202807
I bet you don't internalize the nuanced psychological differentiation between the distinct abstract constructs of grammar and the singular concept of spelling. Bee. You?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 21:15:54 UTC No. 16203017

>>16202995
>the nuanced psychological differentiation between the distinct abstract constructs of grammar and the singular concept of spelling.
Both are "abstract concepts" made by rockapes like OP's rockape who shills "his own(?)" abstract concept. "Ooga booga", nigger.

>>16202020
Of course I don't, like the average american I don't have 20 grand lying around and the patience to deal with the other kind of average american who does because they sued someone over reified bullshit laws. Like patents. This isn't even considering the fact I would have to retard myself down to believing in the idea of "intellectual property". Einstein worked at a patent office for this reason and look at the retarded shit he spouted.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 21:31:39 UTC No. 16203031

>>16202712
>Disproving math by using math against itself but fail miserably because you confused arithmetic operations and their definitions.

I love Hotep logic when it comes to science and math. It's very rare, but always entertaining.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 07:31:40 UTC No. 16203769

The way he reasons is like so:
one thing (1 set of things) x another thing (a set of one element) = 2 things being multiplied.
But that's not how algebra works.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 07:33:07 UTC No. 16203770

>>16203769
>(1 set of some number of elements)
corrected for clarity, apologies

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 09:23:35 UTC No. 16203876

>>16202712
Multiplication can identify as addition, becoming a transoperator. You need to educate yourself in gender math to understand those advanced concepts.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:47:35 UTC No. 16204279

>>16203769
Consider 1 kg x 1 m = 1 kg m
Two things.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:05:46 UTC No. 16204323

>>16203769
Just take the cartesian product,
1 dim x 1 dim = 2 dim

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:07:20 UTC No. 16205082

>>16202020

No one has any pantents

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 00:05:01 UTC No. 16205439

>>16203769
No, you're overthinking it. It's literally this dumb...he was under the impression that:
>(thing) x (thing) = (ALWAYS a different thing)

...So his brain was shorted out by the simplicity of:
>1 x 1 = 1

This is the point where a normal child asks "how", then works to understand the explanation. By he's clearly afflicted with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, so he rejected the explanation because of the initial incongruity and then tied it into all the other shit he didn't understand (like the periodic table) so he could feed his need for self-aggrandizement by announcing to the world his amazing "discovery".

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 00:20:26 UTC No. 16205465

>>16202020
I'm sort of refuting his claims. Starting from the very bottom of his paper here: https://tcotlc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/OTOET_PREVIEW_055_SEPTEMBER_29_2020.pdf

I'm formalizing his mathematical arguments. I don't know if I want to touch the physical ones but I can at least brute-force through his bullshit to create some algebraic structures.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 00:21:42 UTC No. 16205467

>>16205465
Also, this is unfinished and extremely rough. Please feel free to rip it apart and make fun of me for legitimizing him, I'm doing this purely for lols and because I'm trying to distract myself from being jobless.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 00:40:05 UTC No. 16205495

>>16205467
Maybe ill share it after i look through it later

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 00:40:59 UTC No. 16205496

>>16205495
Share it to who?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 03:55:39 UTC No. 16205727

>>16205465
Fixed a bit more of it. I made some mistakes, and I'm still expanding on my points.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 04:11:26 UTC No. 16205748

>>16205465 >>16205467
>(2×2)_H=6
that nigga really is the whole circus, ain't he?, best off luck wading through the bullshit my guy, i'll save you some trouble and tell you that those "concave polyhedra" Howard claims to have discovered where already talked about by Richard Buckminster Fuller in his book "Synergetics", Bucky's book might seem a bit crank-ish, and id say that is fair, but given all that he did, to compare him with Howard id find it to be insulting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergetics_(Fuller)
have a good day, and best of luck in your employment prospects

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 04:13:53 UTC No. 16205751

>>16205748
oh, and (n×n)_H=n*(n+1), i think

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 04:18:49 UTC No. 16205754

>>16205748
I'm actually not sure if I have enough of an understanding of geometry to be able to tackle his geometric arguments. I only really studied geometry through the lens of combinatorics and vector calculus, and barely some differential geometry because of my research I did in physics undergrad. I'll cross that bridge when I get there but for now I'm focusing on algebra and the logical endpoints, as well as potentially fixing the algebra so it can be consistent.
>>16205751
Thank you, I can add you to the reference list.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 04:34:15 UTC No. 16205768

>>16205754
>I'm actually not sure if I have enough of an understanding of geometry to be able to tackle his geometric arguments.
neither do i, im only informing you that them's shapes didn't arise from him and as such are independent from is fuckery
>reference list
if you desire, oh and would you mind checking if Howards's multiplication distributes over addition?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 04:39:46 UTC No. 16205774

>>16205768
>neither do i, im only informing you that them's shapes didn't arise from him and as such are independent from is fuckery
Ah, alright. Thank you anon.
>would you mind checking if Howards's multiplication distributes over addition?
It does not.

2*(3+4) = (2*3)_H + (2*4)_H = 8+10 = 18
(2*7)_H = 16

It is not distributive. I'm actually not sure how to go about fixing that.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 04:59:29 UTC No. 16205785

>>16205774
>It is not distributive.
mh, thought so
>I'm actually not sure how to go about fixing that.
no need to, tropical algebra(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_geometry ) makes +=min or max, *=+, ^=*, and so on due to + distributing over min and max, but then there is subtropical algebra which makes +=min or max and leaves * as *, ^ as ^ and so on, in site of the fact that * doesn't distribute over either min or max, but it is still useful(i would not be so optimistic with Howard's stuff though)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280646264_International_trade_theory_and_exotic_algebra

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 05:32:44 UTC No. 16205801

>>16205785
Interesting. I'll look into this, thank you for showing me. In the meantime I thought about extending my work to see if there's a Howard vector space, but I would have to work on fixing its algebraic structure before any of that. I'll probably sleep soon but I'll post one more edit before I do.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 05:40:57 UTC No. 16205807

>>16205801
glad to help, sleep well

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 06:03:53 UTC No. 16205818

>>16205807
Good night. Here's my last edit, please feel free to rip into it if you find any inconsistencies.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 07:38:38 UTC No. 16205887

>>16205496
To the outernet

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:21:01 UTC No. 16206277

>>16205887
You can post my response wherever you want. I have no problem with people seeing it.

I'm working on some more parts of Howard's work right now so I'll probably be in and out.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 17:00:48 UTC No. 16206404

>>16205751
Generalized the formula for all natural numbers. Pretty sure it can be extended to the real numbers but I'm sticking to the naturals.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 18:02:23 UTC No. 16206474

>>16206404
>Generalized the formula for all natural numbers.
nice

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 18:10:55 UTC No. 16206482

Make way for the true Hollywood genius.

https://youtu.be/-JmNKGfFj7w

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:41:10 UTC No. 16206802

Can any chemists help me with the last part? I rewrote what he said as "accumulate atoms of
low potential together into systems of high potential [for particles to be able to bond and
allow atomic structure]”. I know next to nothing about chemistry since my background is math and physics. What are some good resources for learning about chemical bonds? Or should I just stay in my lane here?