Associated Topics || Dr. Math Home || Search Dr. Math

### Defining Multiplication

```Date: 08/16/2002 at 19:22:52
From: Cindy Miller
Subject: Defining multiplication

I just read an article in Phi Delta Kappan (Feb. 2001) by Deirdre
Dempsey and John Marshall titled "Dear Verity: Why Are All the
Dictionaries Wrong?" They state that Euclid and some dictionaries
define multiplication equations like 3x4 to mean "the number 3 four
times." I was taught, I teach, and math textbooks say that 3x4 means
3 lots/groups of 4. An array would look like

****
****
****

Because multiplication is commutative, it may not matter symbolically;
however, as the authors mentioned in the article, taking 4 pills a day
for 21 days is a lot different from taking 21 pills a day for 4 days.
If I want my students to know what multiplication "is," what is the
correct explanation?
```

```
Date: 08/16/2002 at 23:41:38
From: Doctor Peterson
Subject: Re: Defining multiplication

Hi, Cindy.

Here is an answer I gave to a related question:

Multiplicand, Multiplier
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58567.html

Your question is really not a math question, but a linguistic
question, even though it involves symbols. Since, as you recognize,
3*4 and 4*3 have the same value, there is no mathematical value in
the distinction. You are only asking about the underlying image when
we say "three times four" in English. (It may have been different in
Euclid's Greek.) And I submit that it can be reasonably interpreted
either way.

My first thought when analyzing the phrase is that originally '3
times' meant to repeat what follows three times; that is, it would
mean the same as '4, taken 3 times'. So 3 times 4 means 4+4+4.

But that seems awkward, considering the way we tend to say the phrase
now. We might read through a calculation, saying "3, times 4 is 12,
plus 2 is 14, ..." where each operation acts on the first number.
we're really saying "3 multiplied by 4." Taken that way, we start
with 3 and multiply it by 4, meaning that we repeat it 4 times. So
3*4 = 3+3+3+3.

The difference here is entirely in the grammar: is '3 times' an
adjective phrase modifying '4', or is 'times' a preposition
equivalent to 'multiplied by', and 'times 4' a modifier of '3'?

When we introduce children to multiplication, it's reasonable to
start with one specific meaning, just so they have a concrete image
to start with. But we can almost immediately point out that

****
****
****

can be seen equally well as 3 rows of 4, or as 4 columns of 3. Once
you've drawn the figure, or once you've written 3*4, no one can
really tell which interpretation you meant. The distinction has been
abstracted out of the problem.

And that is a good thing, not bad: in mathematics the ability to work
abstractly and forget what the concrete problem was is a major
advantage, because we can ignore details that don't affect the
result, and rearrange the work to make it easier. If I took 4 pills a
day for 21 days, and now I want ONLY to know how many pills I took, I
can call it 4*21 (I just put the numbers in the order I saw them,
without thinking about which is the multiplicand) and re-model the
problem as 4 sets of 21, allowing me to add 21+21+21+21, which is
easier than adding 21 4's. I can switch freely among different
models, because I know that the outcome is equivalent. So I never
bother to define whether 4*21 means 4 groups of 21 or 21 groups of 4,
because that distinction would only be a hindrance. And if I were
doing a calculation for which it made a difference whether I took 4
or 21 pills a day, such as finding the concentration of medication in
my blood, I wouldn't be multiplying, because that would be the wrong
abstraction!

So "what is multiplication?" It is a commutative operation that can
be modeled in two symmetrical ways as repeated addition (when applied
to whole numbers).

Does that make sense?

- Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
```

```
Date: 08/16/2002 at 23:14:46
From: Doctor Tom
Subject: Re: Defining multiplication

My understanding is that multiplication of natural numbers is defined
as follows (and some stuff has to be proven as we go along - I'll just
state the results).

0 = {} (zero is the empty set)
1 = {0} (the set containing zero)
2 = {0, 1}
3 = {0, 1, 2}
4 = {0, 1, 2, 3}
et cetera. This set is defined by the "axiom of infinity" in the
Zarmelo-Frankel set theory.

Then you need to show that if m and n are two of the natural numbers
above and there is a 1-1 mapping between them, they are identical.

Then define m x n (multiplication) as follows:

The ordered pair (a, b) is {{a}, {a, b}}

If S and T are two sets, then:

S X T = {(s, t) : s is in S and t is in T}

(I used upper-case X for the cross product above.)

To calculate m x n, construct the set m X n (this is just a set), and
then find the unique natural number that can be mapped 1-1 onto this
set.

Thus, if m = 2 and n = 3

m = {0, 1}, n = {0, 1, 2}

m X n = {(0, 0), (0, 1), (0, 2), (1, 0), (1, 1), (1, 2)}

Define f mapping m X n to 6  = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5} as follows:

f: (0, 0) -> 0
(0, 1) -> 1
(0, 2) -> 2
(1, 0) -> 3
(1, 1) -> 4
(1, 2) -> 5

Show f is 1-1 and onto and you've proved that 2x3 = 6.

- Doctor Tom, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
```
Associated Topics:
College Definitions
College Logic
Elementary Definitions
Elementary Multiplication
High School Definitions
High School Logic
Middle School Definitions
Middle School Logic

Search the Dr. Math Library:

 Find items containing (put spaces between keywords):   Click only once for faster results: [ Choose "whole words" when searching for a word like age.] all keywords, in any order at least one, that exact phrase parts of words whole words

Submit your own question to Dr. Math
Math Forum Home || Math Library || Quick Reference || Math Forum Search

Ask Dr. MathTM
© 1994- The Math Forum at NCTM. All rights reserved.
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/