Algebraic explanation of - times - = +

  • Thread starter Thread starter G037H3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explanation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the algebraic principle that multiplying two negative numbers results in a positive product. The original poster seeks clarification on a complex explanation from Euler's Elements of Algebra, which outlines how the multiplication of positive and negative values leads to this conclusion. They express confusion over the algebraic identities presented, feeling they lack clarity. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding additive inverses and the reasoning behind the signs in multiplication. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the need for clearer explanations of these algebraic concepts.
G037H3
Messages
280
Reaction score
2
I'm pretty sure this isn't a homework style question. o_O

could someone please explain this, I may be overly tired, but it's confusing me:

"A further illustration of this rule is generally given by algebraists as follows: First, we know that +a multiplied by +b gives the product +ab; and if +a be multiplied by a quantity less than b, as in b-c, the product must necessarily be less than ab; in short, from ab we must subtract the product of a, multiplied by c; hence a times (b-c) must be expressed by ab-ac; therefore it follows that a times -c gives the product -ac. If now we consider the product arising from the multiplication of the two quantities (a-b), and (c-d), we know that it is less than that of (a-b) times c, or of ac-bc; in short, from this product we must subtract that of (a-b) times d; but the product (a-b) times (c-d) becomes ac-bc-ad, together with the product of -b times -d annexed; and the question is only what sign we must employ for this purpose, whether + or -. Now we have seen from that the product ac-bc we must subtract a quantity less than ad, we have therefore subtracted already too much by the quantity bd; this product must therefore be added; that is, it must have the + sign prefixed, hence we see that -b times -d gives +bd for a product; or -minus multiplied by -minus gives +plus."
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
A negative times a negative equaling a positive is best understood from what it means to be negative. If a + b = 0 we call b “-a” or we say that b is a’s additive inverse. Given that:
1 + -1 = 0
-1(1 + -1)=-1*0
-1(1 + -1) = 0
-1*1 + (-1)(-1) =0
So -1 + (-1)(-1) = 0
Thus -1’s additive inverse is (-1)(-1), but -1’s additive inverse is 1. So (-1)(-1) = 1.
From here it gets simple, consider
(-a)(-b) = (-1)a(-1)b = (-1)(-1)ab = 1ab = ab
 
I understand that completely. What I'm asking for is an explanation of what I posted.
 
The context part you have quoted isn't very clear. It's all just a bunch of rambling algebra identities.

What is it you are having problems understanding?
 
Tac-Tics said:
The context part you have quoted isn't very clear. It's all just a bunch of rambling algebra identities.

What is it you are having problems understanding?

I understand why - x - = +, i simply want to understand the argument given

it's in Euler's Elements of Algebra x.x
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top