2 ms·
My point is only that the commutative property is not inherent to all multiplication operations, so there can be a distinction between the operands. It's not ne
by SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
My point is only that the commutative property is not inherent to all multiplication operations, so there can be a distinction between the operands. It's not necessarily a useful distinction, and in the usual use of multiplication it's utterly useless and only adds confusion.
But matrix multiplication is taught in high school (and usually promptly forgotten), it's not particularly advanced math.
Personally I'm of the opinion that the terminology is muddled. There's no need to distinguish the operands of a multiplication over any of the usual domains (reals, rationals, integers, etc). And when you reach the point where it does become important there's generally more than one product operation and we should stop calling it multiplication. "Matrix multiplication" is a bad term. You also typically wouldn't name the operands, since as you note there can be more than two!
- qsort 6y agoSure, my counterpoint was just that the same reasoning technically applies to addition as well, but as you note "matrix multiplication" is taught in high school, while my example wouldn't come up. I agree not calling it multiplication would probably help, perhaps something like "linear transformation composition" might encourage students to keep it separated from real multiplication, I jsut found the argument in the original article kind of ridiculous to be honest.