Understanding the Definition and Application of Multiplication

  • Thread starter Thread starter roger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Multiplication
Click For Summary
The rigorous definition of multiplication for positive integers is that it is equivalent to repeated addition. This concept is extended to rational numbers algebraically, real numbers through continuity, and complex numbers via algebraic methods. The discussion also touches on the relationship between Z3 and Z7, with some participants asserting that Z3 is isomorphic to a subgroup of Z7 under certain mappings. Additionally, multiplication is viewed as counting elements in a Cartesian product, illustrating its connection to addition and commutativity. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the foundational nature of multiplication in mathematics and its various applications.
roger
Messages
318
Reaction score
0
What is the rigorous definition of multiplication and how can it be shown to be like repeated addition ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The rigorous definition of multiplying positive integers is that it is repeatedly adding them.

It is extended to rationals algebraically, and to the reals by continuity, and thence the complexes by algebraic means.

See the VSI (A Very Short Introduction to) book on Mathematics.
 
matt grime said:
The rigorous definition of multiplying positive integers is that it is repeatedly adding them.

It is extended to rationals algebraically, and to the reals by continuity, and thence the complexes by algebraic means.

See the VSI (A Very Short Introduction to) book on Mathematics.

but why isn't the set Z3,+ a subgroup of Z7,+ ?
 
roger said:
but why isn't the set Z3,+ a subgroup of Z7,+ ?
? It is a subgroup! Or, rather, is isomorphic to a subgroup. Mapping {0, 1, 2} to {0, 9, 18}, in that order, is an isomorphism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure I either understand what roger is getting at or that i agree with halls, though exactly what Z3 and Z7 are is ambigous, but reading them as Z mod 3 and 7 together then the former is not a subgroup of the latter (additvely). But who says that they must be? (apart from roger)
 
HallsofIvy said:
? It is a subgroup! Or, rather, is isomorphic to a subgroup. Mapping {0, 1, 2} to {0, 9, 18}, in that order, is an isomorphism.
Sorry. For some reason my eyes bollixed on me and I read Z7 as Z27!
 
i tend to think of multiplication as any operation which distributes over adition.for positive integers I like to think of multiplication as counting the elements of a cartesian product.

I.e. if a set S has n elements and a set T has m elements then their cartesian product, i.e. the rectangle you build with base S and height T, has nm elements.

this also works for infinite sets. it also illustrates why commutativity is true, by turning the rectangle on its side.

of course from a certain point of view, considering them separately, addition on the real and multiplication on the positive reals, they are prety much the same, under the exponential mapping.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K