@fresh_42 This totally is the case. I agree with you and Feynman. People here don’t explain in simple language and pour lots of information as a reply. This makes hard to understand and then they say we have pointed this or that out many times but you ignored. I don’t ignore. It gets lost into...
I saw.
and this proves my point. “Vast majority” always do what’s convenient. They would not understand inverse of a. Same thing with percentage. People understand 100. They are able to Compare things with 100. That’s why we use percent today.
That’s a mistake or typo.
Isn’t everything just addition?
Subtraction is addition of opposite. Multiplication is repeated addition and division is just opposite of multiplication which is also just addition.
Just because division is used by companies with big names doesn’t qualify division as a concept. It’s still multiplication.
They must have used it because its convenient.
Division has made life easier.
It’s for convenience that we teach division to kids. Actually what we are doing is inverted multiplication.
That’s what he meant by “to give all kids same number of cookie”. Division is for convenience.
If we are literally breaking down things into very basics then we are actually doing repeated addition. ##13## added ##13## times =##169##.
But we can save time and do direct multiplication.
For example what is ##\frac {169}{13} = ?##
This says “When ##169## is divided into ##13## groups how many there are in each group?”
This can be converted into a multiplication problem like this “##13## groups of how many in each group makes ##169##?”
This is ##13 * ? = 169##. It can be solved...
Ok. We define things and combine them to make fundamental statements which can be proved by the definition itself like here.
But I am not satisfied that distance definition doesn’t work to prove axiom.
Translation: Axioms are not that difficult to understand.
But I don’t know why this one doesn’t feel obvious.
By ‘it’ you mean property of absolute value inequality just to be clear.