Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Topic: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Replies: 33   Last Post: Sep 21, 2012 2:48 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Paul A. Tanner III

Posts: 5,920
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Posted: Sep 13, 2012 6:17 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Joe Niederberger <niederberger@comcast.net> wrote:
> Paul Tanner III says:
>>You better, since the idea that repeated addition is merely a property of natural number multiplication was one of his main themes as to how it is not the case that repeated addition is what natural number multiplication *is*.
>
>>You evidently did not actually read carefully enough what he wrote.
>
> I don't recall him ever saying "repeated addition" was an "algebraic property". Quote him.


I said, "property of natural number multiplication" not algebraic property.

He implies very clearly that repeated is a property of natural number multiplication:

"It's Still Not Repeated Addition"
http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_0708_08.html

Quote:

"For the record

For the benefit of those readers who want to see the details, the axiom systems for the different number systems are: the axioms for complete ordered fields describe the real number system, the axioms for fields describe the rational number system, and the axioms for integral domains describe the whole numbers. You can find discussions of these systems in any contemporary college-level algebra textbook.

Starting with the reals, which are a complete ordered field, if you restrict to the rational numbers you get a field (which, though ordered, is not complete), and if you restrict further to the whole numbers you get an integral domain (which is not a field). The positive whole numbers do not really constitute a number system, and so mathematicians have had no reason to write down axioms to describe them as such. At the turn of the twentieth century, an Italian mathematician called Peano did formulate what are often called the Peano axioms, but their purpose is to show how the positive whole numbers can be defined from first-order logic; they are not a descriptive axiom system that tells you how to work in the system, as are the other axiom systems I just listed.

The point to bear in mind is that, once you have specified the real number system, everything else follows, whole number arithmetic, rational number arithmetic, and all the relationships between the different subsystems. In particular, there is just one kind of number, real numbers, one addition operation, one multiplication operation, and one exponentiation operator (where the exponent may itself be any real number). You get everything else by restricting to particular subsets of numbers. The axioms do not tell you what the real numbers are or what the addition and multiplication operations are; they simply describe their properties vis a vis arithmetic. The axioms for a complete ordered field describe the properties those operations have when applied to all real numbers, the axioms for a field describe the properties the operations have when restricted to the rational numbers, and the axioms for an integral domain tell you how the operations behave when you restrict them to whole numbers.

As I said earlier, I don't think it would be a sensible thing to teach arithmetic by starting with the real number system; indeed, I find it hard to imagine how that could possibly succeed. But since that is the culmination of the arithmetic learning journey, it would be wise to avoid doing anything that runs counter to that final goal system."

Most specifically, look at these taken together:

Quote:

"Starting with the reals, which are a complete ordered field, if you restrict to the rational numbers you get a field (which, though ordered, is not complete), and if you restrict further to the whole numbers you get an integral domain (which is not a field)."

"The point to bear in mind is that, once you have specified the real number system, everything else follows, whole number arithmetic, rational number arithmetic, and all the relationships between the different subsystems."

"The axioms do not tell you what the real numbers are or what the addition and multiplication operations are; they simply describe their properties vis a vis arithmetic."

"The axioms for a complete ordered field describe the properties those operations have when applied to all real numbers, the axioms for a field describe the properties the operations have when restricted to the rational numbers, and the axioms for an integral domain tell you how the operations behave when you restrict them to whole numbers."

Notice the use of the term "properties" applied to the operations and that these properties of the operations derive from the algebraic properties (closure, associative, identity, inverse, commutative, distributive).


Message was edited by: Paul A. Tanner III


Date Subject Author
9/12/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/12/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Wayne Bishop
9/12/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/12/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/12/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/12/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
kirby urner
9/12/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/12/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/12/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/12/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/12/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/13/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/13/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/13/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/13/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/14/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/13/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/13/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/13/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/13/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/14/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/16/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/17/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/14/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/17/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/15/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/17/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/15/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/17/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/18/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/20/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III
9/20/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Joe Niederberger
9/21/12
Read Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Paul A. Tanner III

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.