> I ask again the following questions: > > If you contend that multiplication is not repeated > addition, how do you define it?
Note that no one really answered your question.
Alain essentially agreed with you, while Jonathan sidestepped the real question. In order to try to prevent that, you'd have to ask Jonathan the following question:
If you contend that multiplication on *natural numbers* is not repeated addition, how do you define it?
Note that the definition Jonathan gave is definition by repeated addition, just expressed in terms of recursion.
The moment people like Devlin stop calling you a liar for saying that multiplication on natural numbers is repeated addition, the rest of the communication should not be difficult. As long as, however, they insist that you're a liar, or just fundamentally wrong, for saying that, I doubt you will get very far in trying to communicate with them.
It became a matter of a religious cult, and the Delvinists will keep on pretending their emperor is dressed in splendid garments no matter how amusingly obvious it is to every child that he is stark naked.