Talk:Multiplication and repeated addition

Group project

This article is the group project by the members of the LinkedIn group "Math, Math Education, Math Culture" and the members of the Math Future network. LinkedIn discussion (group members only): http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=100345331&gid=33207&commentID=73974630 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaDroujkova (talk • contribs) 10:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because I am editing it for relevant content. There is a large body of content coming up in the next several hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaDroujkova (talk • contribs) 10:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Grief - this article was started only 4 days ago - and it's been treated as if it is a mature article which should have loads of links to and from it. I suggest that waiting a couple of months would be appropriate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry1776 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone in elementary school is taught multiplication by repeated addition. There is no real controversy (notice that almost all the references are to just 1 person). I think the article should be labeled as fringe. MvH (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)MvH[reply]

In mathematics, more complicated expressions and operations are defined in terms of simpler ones. This means that when you delete the definition of the simpler operations, then the more complicated ones are also no longer defined. The definition of multiplication of real numbers reduces to multiplying rational numbers (see: construction of the reals). Multiplying rationals reduces to multiplying integers, and that reduces to repeated addition. Delete that last one, repeated addition, and all the other definitions of multiplication become incomplete. MvH (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)MvH[reply]

Viewing multiplication as scaling is a useful. But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not we should stop teaching multiplication as repeated addition. Regardless of the merits, this article can be labeled as fringe, given the very small number of proponents. MvH (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)MvH[reply]

Purpose of "Pedagogical perspectives" headline

What's the purpose of the § Pedagogical perspectives headline? Isn't the topic of the whole article a pedagogical perspective? — Sebastian 14:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Links

The links to Devlin's articles appear to be broken. Can anyone help find alternate sources for these articles?

https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_06_08.html

https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_0708_08.html

https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_09_08.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.182.92 (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atrytone (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"inherently multiplicative" is a false concept that does not exist

In 1913 Henry Sheffer proved that all math is reducible to addition. This proof gives us NAND logic and is the basis for all digital computers. In short, if there is any math that cannot be reduced to a special case of addition, it could not be represented on a binary computer.

Sheffer, H. M. (1913), "A set of five independent postulates for Boolean algebras, with application to logical constants", Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 14: 481–488

Robert Rauch (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"substantially modified" is misleading at best

"Moreover, the repeated addition model must be substantially modified when irrational numbers are brought into play."

Actually as found with arc lengths that arise from radian measures, one only need to change the base to the irrational number to then invoke "repeated addition" as a substitute for multiplication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Rauch (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre claim removed

I removed the following:

Treating multiplication as repeated addition also has consequences in dimensional analysis. If an object is travelling at a constant speed of 3m/s, the distance travelled by that object in 4 seconds would be 3m/s × 4s = (12ms)/s = 12m. However, if we treat it as repeated addition, then the distance travelled would be 3m/s + 3m/s + 3m/s + 3m/s = 12m/s or 4s + 4s + 4s = 12s, resulting in the distance travelled having wrong dimensions/units.

By repeated addition, the distance travelled in each second is 3m (either because that is simply the distance travelled in a second, or if you like calculated as 1m/s * 1s = 1m); therefore the total is 3m+3m+3m+3m. Exactly the same (of course). Imaginatorium (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's say you want to multiply 2 masses, one of mass a kg and the other of mass b kg (as you would in F=GMm/r^2 ). If we multiply, then it's a kg * b kg = c kg^2 , which is the correct dimension. If we repeatedly add, though, we get either:

a kg + a kg + a kg + ... b times, which equals c kg,

or

b kg + b kg + b kg + ... a times, which equals c kg.

In both cases, the units are kg, not kg^2 , right? Sunny642 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]