Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
- From: The TimeLord <math-n-physics-not@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:20:44 -0500
Am Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:07:11 -0700 schrieb Raghar <RagharA2@xxxxxxxxx> in
644bc2e6-2142-4727-84f4-cca11536171f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Jul 27, 11:18 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
which shows that (-1)*(-1) = 1. Ta-dah!You lost some information in the above series of equations. A SQRT(1) =
As a gift, we get sq.rt.(1) = -1, Of course we already knew that
1*1=1, so we have discovered by this simple and obvious means that
numbers can have two different square roots.
1. If you'd like to obtain an result -1 from squaring 1, you must add
that lost information yet again. Aka e*SQRT((a*a)) where e = a >> 63
(for signed 64 bit integers). A multiplication is defined as a = b*c. a
= SQRT(b) contains only one element, thus it can't be bijective without
correction factor.
The ambiguosity is not a fault of the function, it's rather fault of
mathematicians. (They are accustomed to certain traditions, and are
SOOOOOOOOO last century.)
I don't think that the programming issue is what the original question
was about. As for mathematicians being sooooooo last century, give a non-
engineering/non-computer/non-number way of explaining why a negative
times a negative should or should not equal a positive.
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
.
- References:
- On the muliplication of negative numbers
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
- From: Raghar
- On the muliplication of negative numbers
- Prev by Date: Re: Physics versus Mathematics
- Next by Date: Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
- Previous by thread: Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
- Next by thread: Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
