>This is an example of Jonathan's point that speakers of English need to consider that actually saying what they actually mean is a good thing
Jonathan said before A x B means adding A to ZERO B times. I pointed out the ambiguity that that could be read as repeatedly forming the sum A+0 (do it B times -- does the answer ever change?)
His new formulation suffers from the exact same ambiguity, though now we are to add A to itself (form the sum A+A) B-1 times. Well, I get the answer 2A no matter how many times I form that sum.
Language is ambiguous, furthermore, since when did the phantom menace that Jonathan is attacking ever reach the status of *the* official definition? For teaching multiplication, you need to illustrate many ways. That's how to overcome the ambiguities of human language.
