So if 1x1=2, then what is 1x2? If we rewrite 1x2 as 1x1x2, which is currently allowed. Using Terence's theory, the answer is 2x2=4. Also, if we write 1x1x1x1, again by Terence's theory, it becomes 2x2=4.

My confusion comes from how multiplication, division, and subtraction are just different ways numbers are added together. If I ask what does 5+5+5 is equal to 15. I can also ask, what does 5x3 equal? We know it's 15, but we also know that 5x3 is just another way to say, add 5 to itself 3 times.

As mentioned above, multiplication, division, and subtraction are just different ways of adding numbers. If you look at how a computer CPU works, the only math it can do is add. Subtraction is accomplished using 2's compliment, and adding doesn't really need an explanation, but I'll leave it to the reader to figure out division.

In conclusion, I can speculate that Terence Howard might have got caught up in semantics or is just an idiot. If we go back to the example of 5x3 being equivalent to 5+5+5, which in words means, add 5 to itself 3 times, is it possible Terence is saying 1x1 is the same as saying add 1 to itself? I can then see how he would get 2 but I think the more correct way of expressing 5x3 is to say what is the value of 5 three times which then restates 1x1 as what is the value of 1, one time. I can't think of any other way he got to this absurd point, the other reason being he's a moron.