Why does multiplying by 0 equal 0?


by LightbulbSun
Tags: equal, multiplying
LightbulbSun
LightbulbSun is offline
#1
Dec18-08, 04:04 PM
P: 362
I know why it would equal to 0 if it was (0*0). But what about an actual number? Why does (100*0) equal to 0? You're not multiplying anything, but shouldn't it still equal to 100? If I have 100 cookies on the table, and I don't multiply it by anything, why do I suddenly have zero cookies on the table?

I'm just trying to gain a conceptual understanding behind the zero-factor algebraic property.
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Researchers help Boston Marathon organizers plan for 2014 race
'Math detective' analyzes odds for suspicious lottery wins
Pseudo-mathematics and financial charlatanism
Tedjn
Tedjn is offline
#2
Dec18-08, 04:08 PM
P: 740
One possible conceptual way to think about it is to say, multiplying 2 * 100 is like having 2 groups of 100 cookies on the table. Multiplying 1 * 100 is like having 1 group of 100 cookies on the table. Multiplying 0 * 100 is like having no groups of 100 cookies on the table, hence no cookies at all.

However, I agree that this is may not be very intuitive. When dealing with 0, it is sometimes more difficult to match mathematical situations to real life situations. It is probably better to understand 0 * any number = 0 just as a consequence of several properties of numbers that we take for granted.
statdad
statdad is offline
#3
Dec18-08, 04:16 PM
HW Helper
P: 1,344
Remember that [tex] 0 + a = a [/tex], [tex] 0 + 0 = 0 [/tex], and [tex] a - a = 0 [/tex], no matter what number you use for [tex] a [/tex]. Now the rules of arithmetic give this

[tex]
\begin{align*}
0 \cdot a & = (0 + 0)a\\
& = 0 \cdot a + 0 \cdot a\\
\left(0 \cdot a - 0 \cdot a\right) & = 0 \cdot a\\
0 & = 0 \cdot a
\end{align*}
[/tex]

Vid
Vid is offline
#4
Dec18-08, 04:26 PM
P: 420

Why does multiplying by 0 equal 0?


You actually prove this at the beginning of an undergrad analysis/theoretical calculus class.
LightbulbSun
LightbulbSun is offline
#5
Dec18-08, 04:53 PM
P: 362
Quote Quote by Tedjn View Post
One possible conceptual way to think about it is to say, multiplying 2 * 100 is like having 2 groups of 100 cookies on the table. Multiplying 1 * 100 is like having 1 group of 100 cookies on the table. Multiplying 0 * 100 is like having no groups of 100 cookies on the table, hence no cookies at all.

However, I agree that this is may not be very intuitive. When dealing with 0, it is sometimes more difficult to match mathematical situations to real life situations. It is probably better to understand 0 * any number = 0 just as a consequence of several properties of numbers that we take for granted.
That's actually a very good way of thinking about it.

Quote Quote by statdad View Post
Remember that [tex] 0 + a = a [/tex], [tex] 0 + 0 = 0 [/tex], and [tex] a - a = 0 [/tex], no matter what number you use for [tex] a [/tex]. Now the rules of arithmetic give this

[tex]
\begin{align*}
0 \cdot a & = (0 + 0)a\\
& = 0 \cdot a + 0 \cdot a\\
\left(0 \cdot a - 0 \cdot a\right) & = 0 \cdot a\\
0 & = 0 \cdot a
\end{align*}
[/tex]
Ah, so it's sort of a cancelation?
tiny-tim
tiny-tim is offline
#6
Dec18-08, 05:01 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
tiny-tim's Avatar
P: 26,167
Quote Quote by LightbulbSun View Post
If I have 100 cookies on the table, and I don't multiply it by anything, why do I suddenly have zero cookies on the table?
Hi LightbulbSun!

No, if you don't multiply it by anything, you still have 100 cookies on the table.

This is a language thing

"not multiplying by anything" is not the same as "multiplying by nothing"

"not multiplying by anything" means leaving it the same.

EDIT: I think the French don't have this problem
they distinguish between (pardon my French! )
"multiplier par rien" and "ne multiplier par rien"
symbolipoint
symbolipoint is offline
#7
Dec18-08, 05:35 PM
HW Helper
P: 2,692
This is far too natural to be confusing. Remember that multiplication is repeated addition. If you add 100, ZERO times, you have ZERO. If you want 100 as result, then you must add 100 ONE time.
LightbulbSun
LightbulbSun is offline
#8
Dec18-08, 06:21 PM
P: 362
Quote Quote by symbolipoint View Post
This is far too natural to be confusing. Remember that multiplication is repeated addition. If you add 100, ZERO times, you have ZERO. If you want 100 as result, then you must add 100 ONE time.
Now it makes more sense to me. Thanks for the explanation.
Hurkyl
Hurkyl is offline
#9
Dec18-08, 07:07 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,101
Quote Quote by LightbulbSun View Post
I know why it would equal to 0 if it was (0*0). But what about an actual number? Why does (100*0) equal to 0? You're not multiplying anything, but shouldn't it still equal to 100? If I have 100 cookies on the table, and I don't multiply it by anything, why do I suddenly have zero cookies on the table?

I'm just trying to gain a conceptual understanding behind the zero-factor algebraic property.
The problem is that natural language sort of pigeon-holes us into thinking "none" and "at least one" are conceptually different. As soon as you break through this barrier and become comfortable working with degenerate cases, stuff like this becomes easy.

For example, how many pennies do you have, if you have zero rows of N pennies each? (Or, as one would generally say in natural language, if you don't have any rows of N pennies each)
poutsos.A
poutsos.A is offline
#10
Dec18-08, 08:39 PM
P: 101
proof ox=o

0x = 0x + 0 = 0x + [ x + (-x)] = (0x + x) + (-x) = x( 0 +1) + (-x) = x +(-x) = 0

or

0x = 0 <===> 0x + x = 0+x <=====> x( 0 + 1) = 0 + x <===> x = 0 + x <===> x=x correct so 0x=0
symbolipoint
symbolipoint is offline
#11
Dec19-08, 12:08 PM
HW Helper
P: 2,692
Quote Quote by poutsos.A View Post
proof ox=o

0x = 0x + 0 = 0x + [ x + (-x)] = (0x + x) + (-x) = x( 0 +1) + (-x) = x +(-x) = 0

or

0x = 0 <===> 0x + x = 0+x <=====> x( 0 + 1) = 0 + x <===> x = 0 + x <===> x=x correct so 0x=0
How does a person learn to work with such simple, low-level ideas like that to prove what would otherwise seem so natural? Fantastic!
Tac-Tics
Tac-Tics is offline
#12
Dec22-08, 08:40 AM
P: 810
Quote Quote by LightbulbSun View Post
I know why it would equal to 0 if it was (0*0). But what about an actual number? Why does (100*0) equal to 0?
Because it turns out simple and useful.

Multiplication, and any operation, is something defined by the mathematician. We could imagine a world where 0 * n = n. But it would break a lot of useful theorems. For instance, 0 * 1 + 1= 1 + 1 = 2. However, 0 * 1 + 1 = (0 + 1)*1 (by distribution), so 0 * 1 + 1 = 1, and so 1 = 2. We must conclude that addition no longer distributes over multiplication (disastrous!!).

In many definitions, when you get to the lowest possible value, the definition loses its literal intuitive meaning. One example is the factorial function, where 0! = 1. Factorial is often defined as the product: 1 * 2 * ... * n, but when n = 0, this definition doesn't make sense.

(Though there are other definitions that do, this is just one example).
MathematicalPhysicist
MathematicalPhysicist is online now
#13
Dec22-08, 08:49 AM
P: 3,172
There isn't really any reason why, that's the way it's defined.
Crazy Tosser
Crazy Tosser is offline
#14
Dec22-08, 03:19 PM
P: 175
Quote Quote by loop quantum gravity View Post
There isn't really any reason why, that's the way it's defined.
We have the winner.

Mathematics is a human convention. That's how zero is defined in it.
Gear300
Gear300 is offline
#15
Dec22-08, 04:38 PM
P: 1,133
Quote Quote by symbolipoint View Post
This is far too natural to be confusing. Remember that multiplication is repeated addition. If you add 100, ZERO times, you have ZERO. If you want 100 as result, then you must add 100 ONE time.
add it to what...anything?
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#16
Dec22-08, 05:31 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by Gear300 View Post
add it to what...anything?
Yes, anything.

126,
12,378,726,387,
0,
or simply n.



i.e.:

126 + 100*0 = 126
126 + 100*1 = 126 + 100

12,378,726,387 + 100*0 = 12,378,726,387
12,378,726,387 + 100*1 = 12,378,726,387 + 100

0 + 100*0 = 0
0 + 100*1 = 0 + 100

or simply

n + 100*0 = n
n + 100*1 = n + 100
Gear300
Gear300 is offline
#17
Dec23-08, 12:32 AM
P: 1,133
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Yes, anything.

126,
12,378,726,387,
0,
or simply n.



i.e.:

126 + 100*0 = 126
126 + 100*1 = 126 + 100

12,378,726,387 + 100*0 = 12,378,726,387
12,378,726,387 + 100*1 = 12,378,726,387 + 100

0 + 100*0 = 0
0 + 100*1 = 0 + 100

or simply

n + 100*0 = n
n + 100*1 = n + 100
So...that would mean such is true for all systems?
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#18
Dec23-08, 10:29 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by Gear300 View Post
So...that would mean such is true for all systems?
I'm not prepared to say that. I am simply clearing up the possible confusion of the question "if you 'add' 100 times 0, what are you adding it to?".


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Multiplying vectors Introductory Physics Homework 4
Multiplying Vectors Introductory Physics Homework 1
Equal areas in equal times Calculus & Beyond Homework 3
Multiplying by 2 Brain Teasers 6
multiplying negatives General Math 12