I Formal definition of multiplication for real and complex numbers

AI Thread Summary
The definition of multiplication for integers as repeated addition does not extend to real or complex numbers, as illustrated by the challenge of interpreting operations like pi times e. To formally define multiplication for real numbers, one must develop the real numbers from the rational numbers, where multiplication is defined through limits of sequences of rational numbers. The multiplication of complex numbers is then derived directly from the multiplication of real numbers. This process involves understanding the Peano Axioms and the completion of rational numbers. Overall, the formal definition of multiplication for real and complex numbers requires a more complex framework than simple repeated addition.
logicgate
Messages
13
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
What is the formal definition of multiplication for real and complex numbers ?
I know that the definition of multiplication for integers is just repeated addition. For example, 5 times 3 means 5 + 5 + 5, but what about if we want to extend this definition to real or complex numbers ? Like for example, what does pi times e mean ? How are we supposed to add pi to itself e times ? So it is very clear that the definition of repeated addition for multiplication doesn't work for all real numbers. So how is multiplication defined for real and complex numbers ?
 
  • Like
Likes symbolipoint
Mathematics news on Phys.org
logicgate said:
TL;DR Summary: What is the formal definition of multiplication for real and complex numbers ?

I know that the definition of multiplication for integers is just repeated addition. For example, 5 times 3 means 5 + 5 + 5, but what about if we want to extend this definition to real or complex numbers ? Like for example, what does pi times e mean ? How are we supposed to add pi to itself e times ? So it is very clear that the definition of repeated addition for multiplication doesn't work for all real numbers. So how is multiplication defined for real and complex numbers ?
This is part of the wider question of how the real numbers are developed in the first place. The starting point is the Peano Axioms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

From this, the properties of addition and multiplication of natural numbers can be formally developed from first principles.

Next comes the development of the rational numbers, from the naural numbers. With addition and multiplication defined as:
$$\frac a b + \frac c d = \frac{ad + bc}{bd}, \ \text{and}\ \frac a b \cdot \frac c d = \frac{ac}{bd}$$Finally, the real numbers can be developed essentially as a completion of the rationals. Each real number can be defined as the limit of some sequence of rationals, And addition and multiplication of real numbers can then be defined using addition and multiplication for these rational sequences.

It probably takes a semester or more to go through all this formally.

PS addition and multiplication of complex numbers is defined directly using addition and multiplication of real numbers. This is actually the only easy bit!
 
You can also view it this way:

##3\times 2=6##
##3.1\times 2.7=8.37##
##3.14\times 2.71=8.5094##
##3.141\times 2.718=8.527238##
##3.1415\times 2.7182=8.5392253##
etc.

The limit of this sequence is ##\pi\times e = 8.539734222673567\dots##

We can also do the same from above, getting successively smaller intervals which contain the value:

##4\times 3=12##
##3.2\times 2.8=8.96##
##3.15\times 2.72=8.568##
##3.142\times 2.719=8.543098##
##3.1416\times 2.7183=8.53981128##
etc.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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