Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1
From: G. Frege (no_spam_at_aol.com)
Date: 08/06/04
- Next message: G. Frege: "Re: Foundation for a Formal Refutation of the Original Halting Problem?"
- Previous message: Robert Low: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- In reply to: >parr\(*>: "Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1"
- Next in thread: >parr\(*>: "Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1"
- Reply: >parr\(*>: "Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:15:58 +0200
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 09:43:39 +0000 (UTC), ">parr\(*>"
<gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote:
>
> As a matter of interest, did you genuinely think that introducing
> the distributive law would help fix someone's wrong intuition?
>
Depends. "Intuition" is a vague term: there is a "intuition" which grows
with mathematical knowledge!
Btw, did you see my simplified try?
<Begin copy>
---------------------------------------------------------
Gina asked:
"Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1"
Well, at least I could make a case why -1 * -1 is NOT -1. (And if the
ONLY alternative for Gina is between -1 and 1 this would explain why
-1 * -1 has to be 1.)
Assume this w e r e the case:
-1 * -1 = -1,
then we could just divide both sides by -1, and we would get:
-1 = -1/-1.
Now a/a is certainly 1 for ANY number a (other than 0).
Hence we w o u l d get:
-1 = 1.
But that's certainly n o t the case. Hence our assumption was false.
Hence
-1 * -1 =/= -1.
Probably that helps to accept the infamous
-1 * -1 = 1.
:-)
-----------------------------------------------------
<End of copy>
F.
P.S.
We make use of the following proof principle:
A -> B -> C -> ... -> D
~D
-----------------------
~A
In words: If we have shown that some assumption A implies B, which
implies C which ... which finally implies D. But we have n o t D, then
we also must have n o t A. (Since if we h a d A we also would have D,
but actually we have n o t D. Hence A c a n't hold.)
- Next message: G. Frege: "Re: Foundation for a Formal Refutation of the Original Halting Problem?"
- Previous message: Robert Low: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- In reply to: >parr\(*>: "Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1"
- Next in thread: >parr\(*>: "Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1"
- Reply: >parr\(*>: "Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|