James, Your videos are the finest most important math videos I have ever seen for helping Highschool Math Teachers know how it should feel for students to see a lesson. I watch your videos over and over and my students benefit from your influence. Thank you, Thank you! for posting all your work!!
Wow, just amazing. I had the same question when I teach my daughter math. And had trouble understanding why multiplication is different in different context. ❤
These types of explanations should be taught right around (preferably before) the time students tend to start demonstrating confusion with the seeming inconsistency in what is considered multiplication. In general, seeking to clarify common difficulties for students in a way that can scale as they advance is a gift that never stops giving. Excellent job!
Exactly, this is exactly why I personally love maths! Identifying this patterns and structures and just running with them and seeing where they lead. If you continue with this line of thought just a bit further, you get structures like groups and rings, with are quite interesting and can help you to study all different types of things, from the very abstract, like how "shapes" relate to each other (Algebraic topology), to the very concrete, like the geometry of molecules and the physics of the smallest things. By the way, I wonder if it could be appropriate to present operations in the negative numbers to kids (in my country we learn them in school during 7th grade, I don't know the situation in the US) in a similar fashion, in a sense of defining them with the properties of natural number operations, and them following the logic consequences of that? I wonder if one could make that work, I feel like it should, but I'm not a teacher, so what do I know. (I do plan on eventually becoming one, but right now I'm just a humble high school student)
Omhay this is the exact video I'm seeking for. Most videos about the meaning of multiplication are just basic and elementary level videos. I became curious about this concept because I'm baffled specifically in kinematics why for example they multiply mass by acceleration to have a Force. My intuition just can't handle it
Thank you!!!! I just posed this question to my class last week. We've not yet derived an answer. Thank you for such an intriguing way of introducing the notion that sometimes we must rely on systems and patterns. My simple method for showing why a negative times a negative is a positive is to use a pattern approach with a simple example (sort of like your equation example approach). If 2x(-3) = -6 and 1x(-3) = -3 and 0x(-3) = 0, then continuing the pattern would result in (-1)x(-3) = 3 and (-2)x(-3) = 6, etc. This, of course, assumes the premise of the properties you outlined in the video.
Awesome tour of the number system. I also recommend Richard Feynman's Lecture on Algebra, especially if you're interested in moving on to include exponentials and logarithms as operations.
I remember, in 1st grade, being blown away by the commutativity of multiplication. My friends didn't see what was so amazing -- our teacher held up the 3x5 grid of dots and it was obvious that you got the same sum whether you grouped them by rows or columns. But for me, what was amazing was that it worked even if you *didn't* group them by rows or columns.... and it wasn't until i got to college thatI encountered ideas that confirmed my intuition that the idea of commutativity of multiplication is really somewhat subtle, see, for example cameroncounts.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/the-commutative-law/
Thank you for this beautiful and easily comprehensible lecture, kind sir. You have cleared my doubts about the meaning of multiplication. Now I know what channel to watch when I wanna study more about maths. Thank you, sincerely. Have a great day, sir. /subscribed
I feel I have to jump in to defend scaling, because if done right it gives the correct answers for multiplication without the need to first presuppose an axiomatic system. By "done right" I mean that you have to include both scaling and rotation. Suppose I can transform a vector by scaling (stretching it) and rotating it. Call that a scale+rotate transform. Then if I transform a vector twice, call the first scaling+rotate a, and the second scaling+rotate b. Then there is a final vector that is the result of using both these operations called scaling+rotate c. Then multiplication is just saying that c is b times a. For example, scaling+rotate of (-3) means triple the length of the vector, and flip it over (rotate) so it is moving in the opposite direction. Scaling+rotate of (-2) means double the length of the vector, and flip it over (rotate) so it moving in the opposite direction. If I first transform by (-3) and then by (-2), then the original vector is pointing in the original direction, and 6 times as long as before. Hence 6 = (-2)(-3). This definition of multiplication has the added benefit of incorporating matrix multiplication, which as you know does not always follow your axiom of ab = ba.
Good points (especially since I left a*b=b*a sitting as an apparent required ring axiom - oops!) The scaling argument, of course, is a good one, but there is something subtle afoot there too. The objects at play here are not vectors alone: there are vectors and there are real numbers, and the multiplication is not between two vectors but is between a real number and a vector (scalar multiplication). We're describing an action of real numbers on vectors. No worries. The argument then is that if you scalar multiply by the real number -1 and then scalar multiply by -1, it has the same effect as scalar multiplying by 1 (which isn't doing anything.) Great. Agreed. So, is this action of real numbers on vectors a convincing explanation as to why -1 times -1 is positive 1 back in the system of real numbers alone? Maybe. It certainly is consistent with the logical consequences I was pointing out. [But I worry there is a rabbit hole are annoying challenge questions then: If two real numbers a and b act the same way on vectors via scalar multiplication, must a = b as real numbers? How do you know? and: Is it clear that if we scalar multiplying a vector by a and then scalar multiplying by b, we get the same result as scalar multiplying by ab? (Which presumes we already know what multiplication is within the real number system. Heavens!) ] Of course, you can multiply the vectors you describe (you are thinking solely in two-dimensions, I presume) directly among those objects themselves if you describe each vector by its magnitude r and angle of elevation from the horizontal a, and set it as the complex number r*e^(ia). Then multiplying two "vectors" r*e^(ia) and s*e^(ib) is just complex number multiplication rs*e^i(a+b), which is precisely the "scale and rotate" geometry you beautifully described. In which case, -1 = 1*e^(i*pi) and -1 x -1 = 1*e^(i*2pi) = 1, and voi la, there is your scale+rotate argument applying to just one class of objects, full on multiplication of complex numbers. (But does understanding the complex numbers presume a full understanding of real number arithmetic? Another rabbit hole.) I just think this is all terribly (fascinatingly) deep stuff!
Marvelous video! But I would still say that multiplication can be understood. I gave some thought to it when I was asked to explain why we multiply converting units. The question was: Why when we convert miles to km we multiply miles times 1.6 when miles are bigger? In the beginning, I was confused: I don't know either, wait! It is illogical. After a while (and a lot of frustration) I notice that as you said I started doing it intuitively without thinking about logic. I was incepted with the idea by the child who asked the question that multiplying 3 x 2 is increasing the number three times two. I went back to the first principles. when we multiply 3 x 2 we are increasing 2 times 3, not the other way around (which over time is forgotten). I'm planning to write an article about it in the future. Now I will provide a shortened version of it. First, we must view math as a language. Every equation is a sentence and like every sentence, semantics boils down to the context. Before we start. Please note that I'm an idiot trying to understand the nature of things. What is multiplication? Repeated add, area, scaling, unit conversion? In my first principle thinking, it is a group of. When translated to English it says 2 times, 3 elements 2 x 3 easy and was explained area 2 m x 3 m = 6m^2 it is still grouping only in two dimension We are not multiplying 2m times 3m but (2 times 1) times (3 times 1) So we have 2 groups of 1 group that have 3 groups of 1 (think of it as a 2-dimensional matrix). Scaling? 3x4m is still 3 groups of 4 meters. Unit conversion? 1 mile is a group consisting o 1.6km (more about it later). 3 x (-2) like it was said 3 groups of -2(debt) if I borrow from you $2 3 times I borrowed 3 groups of 2 dollars. I have 3 groups of elements that I owe you. And those elements consist of something I owe you -2 dollars Or in other words, -2 x 3? Is the same only we are looking instead of the elements themselves, at the group as a whole that we own. I owe you 3 groups of 2 dollars. As an example, we can use chocolate bars. They can be sold individually or in groups. If I take a carton that contains 10 bars. I can look at this in different ways, either how much I must pay (positive) assuming that one bar costs 1 dollar. For one carton I need to pay 10 groups of 1(1 dollar) which gives me $10 Or how much I lose(negative). 10 groups of -1(1 dollar) or -10 groups of 1 (dollar). It boils down to how I look at it. As individual elements being negative or on an entire group. It is like saying: I throw a ball. Some people will focus on Me others on throwing the ball both lead to the same result with a different focus. What about (-2) x (-3)? I just put back two cartons of 3 bars that I owe (each worth 1$) But let's go to the initial question that started all of this. The units conversion 1 mile = 1.6 km 1 mile is a group o 1.6 kilometers. what is the meaning of 1 mile? 1 x mile, mile here is a name of a group. So we have 1 group of 1 mile which is a group itself consisting of 1.6km. In the case of 3 miles, we have 3 groups of 1 group of 1.6km. We also sometimes see the conversion factor written as 1 mile/1.6km Great... now we have a division that is opposite to multiplication but why? What division really means? What If I say to you that division is actually two logics connected with each other? Let's look at examples. We have 12 fish and 3 tanks. we can divide them into 3 equal groups in this case of 4. But what if we look at this scenario as 12 / 4 = 3 are we dividing them into 4 groups of 3? Both these operations 12/3=4 and 12/4 = 3 can answer the same question of how many fish goes to each tank. What is going on? It depends on our perspective. We may look at the fish as families If we want to write it in English sentence it means: Divide 12 fish into x groups of 4 elements Or not! Divide 12 fish into 3 groups of x elements. Most of the time logic is forced upon us depending on what we want to calculate. If we want to calculate the price of an individual element. Like, I bought 10 bars and paid $20 for all, how much does one bar cost? The equation would be 20 / 10 = 2 in this case one bar costs $2 But how we would write this in English? Divide 20 dollars into 10 groups of x = 2 . Now, I know that I have $20 and know that one bar costs $2, and want to know how much I'll get? 20/2 = 10 Divide 20 dollars into x groups of 2 = 10. Notice something interesting If you divide something by itself you are looking at how many groups it will be. $20/$2 12 fish / 4 fish If not like I paid $1000 for 250 products you are looking for elements of the groups 1000 dollars divided into 250 groups of x elements = 4 For every product, you paid 4 dollars which means that 1 product is equal to a group of 4 dollars. Suddenly 1 mile/1.6km starts making sense. For better visualization let’s take 10miles / 16km Divide 10 miles into x groups of 16 = 10 But hold on, I said earlier: If you divide something by itself you are looking at how many groups it will be. We are indeed diving something by itself both miles and km are units of length Like with money: 1 Euro / 1.1 Dollars in both cases, we are dealing with money.
For the same reason, the division is inverse multiplication.
12 fish divided into x groups of 4 = 3 Is opposite to the 3 groups of 4 And 12 fish divided into 3 groups of x = 4 Is also opposite 3 groups of 4
I did enjoy the video but it wasn't that helpful tbh but i really loved the video and you've planted a seed of curiosity and new believe system in my brain ....thanks for that ...im subbing just for that❤
i find it interesting that you find explanations of negative times negative using the abstraction of time "too convoluted," but hey, completely symbolic ap9plication of distributive property isn't. Maybe it speaks to the elegance of logic ;)
Please note the unit m^2 is a "square metre". Admittedly (like most people?) I think "metres squared" when I write it down, but using this leads to ambiguity ... viz. two metres squared = 2m x 2m = 4 m^2
Your presentation definitely helps the student to understand multiplication in more depth. Your examples and the showing how negative numbers, fractions, and complex numbers may have been discovered is also important to the students. However, on zero I disagree with your approach. Here you just drew assumptions out of thin air. For example, you stated that a+0=a without showing that 0 preceded one on the number line. For 3x0=0 you assumed that zero was nothing rather than using the statement that a+0=a to illustrate that concept. You also show that 3*-4 =-(3x4) without proving that when you add negative numbers that you add them as positive numbers and make the result negative.. Here are some false conclusions that are drawn. 2^0=0, 0!=0 because of the statement that 0 is nothing and that 1 is nothing because 1x5=5. I have been using your presentation, that of Tabitha Williams and Hannah Fry to illustrate for my students how to challenge what they are taught. I could you use your help to show the fallacies in my approach.
Yeah but multiiplying is instant adding is not you cant add it all at once like you are multiplying all sets at once so it takes 0 seconds to multiply.
Math is a concept. The universe relies on our concept of it. 0,0/0,1,/-1,0area .25 0,-1/0,1/-1,0/0,-1 area .5 0,1/-1,0/0,-1/1,0 area 1. 0,0/0,2/-2,-2/-2,2area 2 0,0/4,0/2,-2/2,2 area 4 And our math is based on graphs Multiplication isn't wrong we are just associating multiplication =graphs. And area 4 is a multiple of .25
I came here to just learn what is multiplication and I am in 2 grade what is square do you mean like 4 times + because it’s a square Idk dude and why 3mx4m =12 squred that doesn’t make any sense wtfffff you got my dislike
This is the best multiplication video ever. I come back to this video every few years.
James, Your videos are the finest most important math videos I have ever seen for helping Highschool Math Teachers know how it should feel for students to see a lesson. I watch your videos over and over and my students benefit from your influence. Thank you, Thank you! for posting all your work!!
Thanks so much. Very kind.
Loved your way of explaining things, Thank you so much Sir.
You are the best at explaining things about math!
Wow, just amazing. I had the same question when I teach my daughter math. And had trouble understanding why multiplication is different in different context. ❤
These types of explanations should be taught right around (preferably before) the time students tend to start demonstrating confusion with the seeming inconsistency in what is considered multiplication. In general, seeking to clarify common difficulties for students in a way that can scale as they advance is a gift that never stops giving. Excellent job!
Exactly, this is exactly why I personally love maths! Identifying this patterns and structures and just running with them and seeing where they lead. If you continue with this line of thought just a bit further, you get structures like groups and rings, with are quite interesting and can help you to study all different types of things, from the very abstract, like how "shapes" relate to each other (Algebraic topology), to the very concrete, like the geometry of molecules and the physics of the smallest things. By the way, I wonder if it could be appropriate to present operations in the negative numbers to kids (in my country we learn them in school during 7th grade, I don't know the situation in the US) in a similar fashion, in a sense of defining them with the properties of natural number operations, and them following the logic consequences of that? I wonder if one could make that work, I feel like it should, but I'm not a teacher, so what do I know. (I do plan on eventually becoming one, but right now I'm just a humble high school student)
Great fun! Perhaps you answered the question "What ARE multiplication?"
Omhay this is the exact video I'm seeking for. Most videos about the meaning of multiplication are just basic and elementary level videos. I became curious about this concept because I'm baffled specifically in kinematics why for example they multiply mass by acceleration to have a Force. My intuition just can't handle it
U teach in minutes what I haven't learnt in years altogether.
Thank you
" Negative Math: How Mathematical Rules Can Be Positively Bent " ,
Book by Alberto A. Martinez
Thank you!!!! I just posed this question to my class last week. We've not yet derived an answer. Thank you for such an intriguing way of introducing the notion that sometimes we must rely on systems and patterns. My simple method for showing why a negative times a negative is a positive is to use a pattern approach with a simple example (sort of like your equation example approach). If 2x(-3) = -6 and 1x(-3) = -3 and 0x(-3) = 0, then continuing the pattern would result in (-1)x(-3) = 3 and (-2)x(-3) = 6, etc. This, of course, assumes the premise of the properties you outlined in the video.
Greatest Math Video I have ever watched.
Brilliant, you are doing great great things
Came for “what is multiplication” - stayed for watching you sneak teach people group theory ...
Awesome tour of the number system. I also recommend Richard Feynman's Lecture on Algebra, especially if you're interested in moving on to include exponentials and logarithms as operations.
I remember, in 1st grade, being blown away by the commutativity of multiplication. My friends didn't see what was so amazing -- our teacher held up the 3x5 grid of dots and it was obvious that you got the same sum whether you grouped them by rows or columns. But for me, what was amazing was that it worked even if you *didn't* group them by rows or columns.... and it wasn't until i got to college thatI encountered ideas that confirmed my intuition that the idea of commutativity of multiplication is really somewhat subtle, see, for example cameroncounts.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/the-commutative-law/
Great commentary in that blog piece. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you for this beautiful and easily comprehensible lecture, kind sir. You have cleared my doubts about the meaning of multiplication. Now I know what channel to watch when I wanna study more about maths. Thank you, sincerely. Have a great day, sir.
/subscribed
I feel I have to jump in to defend scaling, because if done right it gives the correct answers for multiplication without the need to first presuppose an axiomatic system. By "done right" I mean that you have to include both scaling and rotation.
Suppose I can transform a vector by scaling (stretching it) and rotating it. Call that a scale+rotate transform. Then if I transform a vector twice, call the first scaling+rotate a, and the second scaling+rotate b. Then there is a final vector that is the result of using both these operations called scaling+rotate c. Then multiplication is just saying that c is b times a.
For example, scaling+rotate of (-3) means triple the length of the vector, and flip it over (rotate) so it is moving in the opposite direction. Scaling+rotate of (-2) means double the length of the vector, and flip it over (rotate) so it moving in the opposite direction. If I first transform by (-3) and then by (-2), then the original vector is pointing in the original direction, and 6 times as long as before. Hence 6 = (-2)(-3).
This definition of multiplication has the added benefit of incorporating matrix multiplication, which as you know does not always follow your axiom of ab = ba.
Good points (especially since I left a*b=b*a sitting as an apparent required ring axiom - oops!)
The scaling argument, of course, is a good one, but there is something subtle afoot there too. The objects at play here are not vectors alone: there are vectors and there are real numbers, and the multiplication is not between two vectors but is between a real number and a vector (scalar multiplication). We're describing an action of real numbers on vectors.
No worries. The argument then is that if you scalar multiply by the real number -1 and then scalar multiply by -1, it has the same effect as scalar multiplying by 1 (which isn't doing anything.) Great. Agreed. So, is this action of real numbers on vectors a convincing explanation as to why -1 times -1 is positive 1 back in the system of real numbers alone? Maybe. It certainly is consistent with the logical consequences I was pointing out.
[But I worry there is a rabbit hole are annoying challenge questions then: If two real numbers a and b act the same way on vectors via scalar multiplication, must a = b as real numbers? How do you know? and: Is it clear that if we scalar multiplying a vector by a and then scalar multiplying by b, we get the same result as scalar multiplying by ab? (Which presumes we already know what multiplication is within the real number system. Heavens!) ]
Of course, you can multiply the vectors you describe (you are thinking solely in two-dimensions, I presume) directly among those objects themselves if you describe each vector by its magnitude r and angle of elevation from the horizontal a, and set it as the complex number r*e^(ia). Then multiplying two "vectors" r*e^(ia) and s*e^(ib) is just complex number multiplication rs*e^i(a+b), which is precisely the "scale and rotate" geometry you beautifully described. In which case, -1 = 1*e^(i*pi) and -1 x -1 = 1*e^(i*2pi) = 1, and voi la, there is your scale+rotate argument applying to just one class of objects, full on multiplication of complex numbers. (But does understanding the complex numbers presume a full understanding of real number arithmetic? Another rabbit hole.)
I just think this is all terribly (fascinatingly) deep stuff!
Awesome explanation!
Grand.
Thanks.. It helps me a lot.
Marvelous video! But
I would still say that multiplication can be understood.
I gave some thought to it when I was asked to explain why we multiply
converting units. The question was: Why when we convert miles to km we multiply
miles times 1.6 when miles are bigger?
In the beginning, I was confused: I don't know either, wait! It is illogical.
After a while (and a lot of frustration) I notice that as you said I started
doing it intuitively without thinking about logic.
I was incepted with the idea by the child who asked the question that
multiplying 3 x 2 is increasing the number three times two.
I went back to the first principles. when we multiply 3 x 2 we are increasing 2
times 3, not the other way around (which over time is forgotten).
I'm planning to write an article about it in the future.
Now I will provide a shortened version of it.
First, we must view math as a language. Every equation is a sentence and like
every sentence, semantics boils down to the context.
Before we start. Please note that I'm an idiot trying to understand the nature
of things.
What is multiplication?
Repeated add, area, scaling, unit conversion?
In my first principle thinking, it is a group of.
When translated to English it says 2 times, 3 elements
2 x 3 easy and was explained
area 2 m x 3 m = 6m^2 it is still grouping only in two dimension
We are not multiplying 2m times 3m but (2 times 1) times (3 times 1)
So we have 2 groups of 1 group that have 3 groups of 1 (think of it as a
2-dimensional matrix).
Scaling? 3x4m is
still 3 groups of 4 meters.
Unit conversion?
1 mile is a group consisting o 1.6km (more about it later).
3 x (-2) like it was said 3 groups of -2(debt) if I borrow from you $2 3
times I borrowed 3 groups of 2 dollars. I have 3 groups of elements that I owe you. And those elements consist of something I owe you -2 dollars Or
in other words,
-2 x 3? Is the same only we are looking instead of the elements themselves,
at the group as a whole that we own. I owe you 3 groups of 2 dollars.
As an example, we can use chocolate bars. They can be sold individually
or in groups.
If I take a carton that contains 10 bars.
I can look at this in different ways, either how much I must pay (positive)
assuming that one bar costs 1 dollar.
For one carton I need to pay 10 groups of 1(1 dollar) which gives me $10
Or how much I lose(negative). 10 groups of -1(1 dollar) or -10 groups of
1 (dollar). It boils down to how I look at it. As individual elements being negative or on an entire group.
It is like saying: I throw a ball. Some people will focus on Me others on
throwing the ball both lead to the same result with a different focus.
What about (-2) x (-3)?
I just put back two cartons of 3 bars that I owe (each worth 1$)
But let's go to the initial question that started all of this.
The units conversion
1 mile = 1.6 km
1 mile is a group o 1.6 kilometers.
what is the meaning of 1 mile?
1 x mile, mile here is a name of a group.
So we have 1 group of 1 mile which is a group itself consisting of 1.6km.
In the case of 3 miles, we have 3 groups of 1 group of 1.6km.
We also sometimes see the conversion factor written as 1 mile/1.6km
Great... now we have a division that is opposite to multiplication but why?
What division really means?
What If I say to you that division is actually two logics connected with each
other?
Let's look at examples.
We have 12 fish and 3 tanks.
we can divide them into 3 equal groups in this case of 4.
But what if we look at this scenario as 12 / 4 = 3
are we dividing them into 4 groups of 3?
Both these operations 12/3=4 and 12/4 = 3 can answer the same question of how
many fish goes to each tank.
What is going on?
It depends on our perspective.
We may look at the fish as families
If we want to write it in English sentence it means:
Divide 12 fish into x groups of 4 elements
Or not!
Divide 12 fish into 3 groups of x elements.
Most of the time logic is forced upon us depending on what we want to
calculate.
If we want to calculate the price of an individual element.
Like, I bought 10 bars and paid $20 for all, how much does one bar cost?
The equation would be 20 / 10 = 2 in this case one bar costs $2
But how we would write this in English?
Divide 20 dollars into 10 groups of x = 2
.
Now, I know that I have $20 and know that one bar costs $2, and want to know how much I'll get?
20/2 = 10
Divide 20 dollars into x groups of 2 = 10.
Notice something interesting
If you divide something by itself you are looking at how many groups it will be.
$20/$2
12 fish / 4 fish
If not like I paid $1000
for 250 products you are looking for elements of the groups
1000 dollars divided
into 250 groups of x elements = 4
For every product, you paid 4 dollars which means that 1 product is equal to a group of 4 dollars.
Suddenly 1 mile/1.6km starts making sense.
For better visualization
let’s take 10miles / 16km
Divide 10 miles into
x groups of 16 = 10
But hold on, I said
earlier: If you divide something by itself you are looking at how many groups
it will be.
We are indeed diving
something by itself both miles and km are units of length
Like with money:
1 Euro / 1.1 Dollars
in both cases, we are dealing with money.
For the same reason, the division is inverse multiplication.
12 fish divided into x groups of 4 = 3
Is opposite to the 3 groups of 4
And 12 fish divided into 3 groups of x = 4
Is also opposite 3 groups of 4
When you bump into multiplication of 2 irrational number, may be your thinking will be not true anymore.
@@sevena3075 nah it still hold the truth.
Salute!
I did enjoy the video but it wasn't that helpful tbh but i really loved the video and you've planted a seed of curiosity and new believe system in my brain ....thanks for that ...im subbing just for that❤
i find it interesting that you find explanations of negative times negative using the abstraction of time "too convoluted," but hey, completely symbolic ap9plication of distributive property isn't. Maybe it speaks to the elegance of logic ;)
Please note the unit m^2 is a "square metre". Admittedly (like most people?) I think "metres squared" when I write it down, but using this leads to ambiguity ... viz. two metres squared = 2m x 2m = 4 m^2
❤❤❤❤❤❤
You threw in zero as an 'obvious' extension to the counting numbers, whereas mathematicians struggled with the concept of zero for centuries (AFAIK).
I know. I decided not to make this a 35 minute video and so let that (non-trivial) issue slide.
Your presentation definitely helps the student to understand multiplication in more depth. Your examples and the showing how negative numbers, fractions, and complex numbers may have been discovered is also important to the students. However, on zero I disagree with your approach. Here you just drew assumptions out of thin air. For example, you stated that a+0=a without showing that 0 preceded one on the number line. For 3x0=0 you assumed that zero was nothing rather than using the statement that a+0=a to illustrate that concept. You also show that 3*-4 =-(3x4) without proving that when you add negative numbers that you add them as positive numbers and make the result negative..
Here are some false conclusions that are drawn. 2^0=0, 0!=0 because of the statement that 0 is nothing and that 1 is nothing because 1x5=5. I have been using your presentation,
that of Tabitha Williams and Hannah Fry to illustrate for my students how to challenge what they are taught. I could you use your help to show the fallacies in my approach.
Yeah .. a bit too loose here. Curious what you think of my take on multiplication here: gdaymath.com/lessons/gmp/9-1-chapter-content/
Yeah but multiiplying is instant adding is not you cant add it all at once like you are multiplying all sets at once so it takes 0 seconds to multiply.
I've been watching and marveling at his ability to write backwards. Just realized he's writing forwards a mirroring the video. I feel dumb.
Math is a concept.
The universe relies on our concept of it.
0,0/0,1,/-1,0area .25
0,-1/0,1/-1,0/0,-1 area .5
0,1/-1,0/0,-1/1,0 area 1.
0,0/0,2/-2,-2/-2,2area 2
0,0/4,0/2,-2/2,2 area 4
And our math is based on graphs
Multiplication isn't wrong we are just associating multiplication =graphs.
And area 4 is a multiple of .25
I came here to just learn what is multiplication and I am in 2 grade what is square do you mean like 4 times + because it’s a square Idk dude and why 3mx4m =12 squred that doesn’t make any sense wtfffff you got my dislike
Also why -3-x-3 is plus
Wtf is an equison
But b and a are not numbers
How letters equal something they are just letters
And why a times 0 =0 it’s just a letter