• notabot@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 months ago

    You can look at multiplication as a shorthand for repeated addition, so, for example:

    3x3=0 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 9

    In other words we have three lots of three. The zero will be handy later…

    Next consider:

    -3x3 = 0 + -3 + -3 + -3 = -9

    Here we have three lots of minus three. So what happens if we instead have minus three lots of three? Instead of adding the threes, we subtract them:

    3x-3 = 0 - 3 - 3 - 3 = -9

    Finally, what if we want minus three lots of minus three? Subtracting a negative number is the equivalent of adding the positive value:

    -3x-3 = 0 - -3 - -3 - -3 = 0 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 9

    Do let me know if some of that isn’t clear.

    • bleistift2@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      This was very clear. Now that I see it, I realize it’s the same reasoning why x^(-3) is 1/(x^3):

       2 × -3 = -6
       1 × -3 = -3
       0 × -3 =  0
      -1 × -3 =  3
      

      Thank you!

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      i think this is a really clean explanation of why (-3) * (-3) should equal 9. i wanted to point out that with a little more work, it’s possible to see why (-3) * (-3) must equal 9. and this is basically a consequence of the distributive law:

      0  = 0 * (-3)
         = (3 + -3) * (-3)
         = 3 * (-3) + (-3) * (-3)
         = -9 + (-3) * (-3).
      

      the first equality uses 0 * anything = 0. the second equality uses (3 + -3) = 0. the third equality uses the distribute law, and the fourth equality uses 3 * (-3) = -9, which was shown in the previous comment.

      so, by adding 9 to both sides, we get:

      9 = 9 - 9 + (-3) * (-3).
      

      in other words, 9 = (-3) * (-3). this basically says that if we want the distribute law to be true, then we need to have (-3) * (-3) = 9.

      it’s also worth mentioning that this is a specific instance of a proof that shows (-a) * (-b) = a * b is true for arbitrary rings. (a ring is basically a fancy name for a structure with addition and distribute multiplication.) so, any time you want to have any kind of multiplication that satisfies the distribute law, you need (-a) * (-b) = a * b.

      in particular, (-A) * (-B) = A * B is also true when A and B are matrices. and you can prove this using the same argument that was used above.