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: negative * negative
Replies: 11   Last Post: Apr 5, 1996 6:02 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
JansonEdit@aol.com

Posts: 18
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: negative * negative
Posted: Apr 3, 1996 8:53 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the following. (I have heard it explained
this way several times; I feel there are some disadvantages to it, but I'll
let others articulate them if they so desire.)

In mathematics, definitions that are difficult to apply to concrete models
often are developed to be consistent with already established patterns.
(Aside: In higher arithmetic, for example, we expand nonnegative integer
exponents into negative integer exponents and then to rational exponents.)
We agree that positive times negative is negative (yes?). Then, for
example,

3*-3=-9
2*-3=-6
1*-3=-3
0*-3=0

In each case when we add subtract one to the first factor, the product is
increased by 3. Now, to keep the pattern consistent, -1*-3 must be....

(Of course, the introduction would have to be reworded for elementary
students....) Comments? Is this just as bad as "that's the rule"?


Eric Karnowski





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.