Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 18:24:13 UTC No. 16255105

I would like to take this opportunity to share my paper response to Terrence Howard once again. I've worked on it a bit and have expanded and retracted some parts, it's not close to being finished but I enjoy wasting time on it.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 18:37:51 UTC No. 16255118

>>16255095
How does anyone follow Terry? It literally makes 0 sense

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:00:18 UTC No. 16255155

>>16255105
I think you have overlooked key unit analysis on product rules. In the case of 1 x 1 = 2, as each element refers to an actual entity, the production of 2 indicates something of a unique 2. One would never conflate torque with momentum in a case just because they both equal 2 units. I don't have the wisdom to see where it points, but Terrence challenged identity arguments. Maybe 1x1 is a special case, or maybe further identities should be developed for 1x1x1, 1 x 1 x 2, 1 x 1 x 1 x 3, etc.
Picrel is taken from page 16 of the honorable Terrence Howard's treatise. While he doesn't belabor the point as there is much to do in his great work, it is very clearly stated.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:08:21 UTC No. 16255170

>>16255155
I disagree with you on the uniqueness of 2. I took his statement, "add (a) to itself as many times as is indicated by units in (b)" as literal as possibly could. I could be wrong in my literal interpretation, but I don't know any other way to understand it that is consistent with any sort of formal logic (and this is stretching that, but still).

His identity for 1^3 is actually shown on page 124, where he states that it is the absolute value of pi, so 1^3 = |pi|. He argues that algebra is physical. Because you can't specifically indicate left or right commutivity with his algebra (shown in my algebraic structure section), you can only assume that the square and cubic operators are distinct in and of themselves. I'm still working out the kinks on what he means, but I'll reread to make sure what I said is true to what he argues.

Thank you for challenging my paper, I appreciate it anon.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 09:59:45 UTC No. 16256362

>>16255105
hi, its me the guy that posted https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16223886#p16226539 , i must apologize to you for a mistake i made, on https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16223886#p16226539 i said
>1000<4(if zero was even howardly absorptive) due to 1^3=π
but that is wrong both in regular positional and howadrian positional(not sure if there would be a base that would make it so, specially in howardian positional), im terribly sorry for that blunder of mine, as far as i can see the rest of things i posted should be more or loss correct, i hope you are doing well and may you have a good day

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:05:26 UTC No. 16256368

>>16256362
the reason as to why i was wrong on that is because i misinterpreted the position of the one as being the power that the one is at, which is obviously wrong

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:18:41 UTC No. 16256378

>>16256368
now hat my blunder has been cleared back on topic, does the potential loss change if we do (a×b)/(b×a)_H due to the non-commutativity of the howard product? i assume its just lambda but with an "a" instead of a "b", right?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 21:26:18 UTC No. 16257277

bump