Howard Lutnick

that because they have 1 times 1 equaling 1, an action times an action without a reaction, and as a result of it, you get this contradiction with the square root of 2 being cubed, having the same value as the square root of 2 times 2, which should say a red flag, a herring right away that there's something wrong with the mathematics, with that being the problem that leads into the distribution of prime numbers, because the number 2, any prime number...

Any prime number that you subtract from another prime number always is going to end up in a composite number. But except with the case of the number two, that's the only prime number that you subtract from another prime number and you end up in a prime number. Why? Because the number two is a composite number.

Any prime number that you subtract from another prime number always is going to end up in a composite number. But except with the case of the number two, that's the only prime number that you subtract from another prime number and you end up in a prime number. Why? Because the number two is a composite number.

But they've changed that by trying to force that into a prime because they want it one times one to equal one. And the square root of two being 1.414, they say that times itself will equal it. So it's all convoluted. None of their stuff makes sense.

But they've changed that by trying to force that into a prime because they want it one times one to equal one. And the square root of two being 1.414, they say that times itself will equal it. So it's all convoluted. None of their stuff makes sense.

If I was a student, a mathematical student or a calculus student or algebraic student, and I come in and I show a proof where, OK, one times one equals one. And the proof of this is the square root of two having a contradiction with being cubed and multiplied by two. That's a loop. Hi, everyone. My name is Terrence Howard. I'm an actor, but in the field of science also.

If I was a student, a mathematical student or a calculus student or algebraic student, and I come in and I show a proof where, OK, one times one equals one. And the proof of this is the square root of two having a contradiction with being cubed and multiplied by two. That's a loop. Hi, everyone. My name is Terrence Howard. I'm an actor, but in the field of science also.

So if you would like to connect with me, you can connect with me on Manect. The QR code is down below. And let's have a great conversation.

So if you would like to connect with me, you can connect with me on Manect. The QR code is down below. And let's have a great conversation.

I don't know. Is it bigger than two? It would have to be. Anytime an action times an action has to increase in volume.

I don't know. Is it bigger than two? It would have to be. Anytime an action times an action has to increase in volume.

It would have to be. Why wouldn't it be? It's only the mathematics that they're using, the identity principles, which I call the Jim Crow laws of mathematics. That's the thing that holds them back because they want to keep things back into a balanced place. Instead of allowing the expansion that happens with most numbers, they just want to repeat. They just want to get back to a repeat.

It would have to be. Why wouldn't it be? It's only the mathematics that they're using, the identity principles, which I call the Jim Crow laws of mathematics. That's the thing that holds them back because they want to keep things back into a balanced place. Instead of allowing the expansion that happens with most numbers, they just want to repeat. They just want to get back to a repeat.

Look it up on the calculator. It's $1.21.

Look it up on the calculator. It's $1.21.

Well, you've got to remember, in multiplying volumetrically, you're wrapping things back around.

Well, you've got to remember, in multiplying volumetrically, you're wrapping things back around.

Like in a pool, in a swimming pool, the pond, the ripples go out, hit the edge, and then they come back. The returning waves are added to the expanding waves. Each returning wave is going to become multiplied even more. The pressure doesn't just expand out and keep going out. It's coming back. So you have to include the contraction. You have to include the returning wave.

Like in a pool, in a swimming pool, the pond, the ripples go out, hit the edge, and then they come back. The returning waves are added to the expanding waves. Each returning wave is going to become multiplied even more. The pressure doesn't just expand out and keep going out. It's coming back. So you have to include the contraction. You have to include the returning wave.

So that's why the volumetric would be different. But even with what you just did, like if I asked you, what's 0.10 times 0.10? 0.10 times 0.10 says 0.001, right? Right. But we know that 0.10 is a dime. Okay. We know that a dime times a dime is... 10 dimes times 10 dimes equals a dollar. Should equal a dollar. Not necessarily. 10 times 10.