3 ms·

>I am sure he enjoys it a lot to be in a position where he can write pedantic falsehoods Are you sure it's pedantic? As a matter of practically, neither people

>I am sure he enjoys it a lot to be in a position where he can write pedantic falsehoods Are you sure it's pedantic? As a matter of practically, neither people, nor computers actually compute multiplication in such a way. Even children, though they may be exposed to the 'multiplication is repeated addition' concept as an introduction to multiplication, are quickly ushered past this and it is never brought up again - because it isn't helpful as you incorporate fractions, and negative numbers.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> As a matter of practically, neither people, nor computers actually compute multiplication in such a way. Even children, though they may be exposed to the 'multiplication is repeated addition' concept as an introduction to multiplication, are quickly ushered past this and it is never brought up again. The standard manual method of multiplication of large numbers relies on leveraging heavily: (1) the fact that my multiplication is equivalent to repeated addition for nonnegative integers, (2) the fact that shifting digit positions are equivalent to multiplication by the base (usually 10) or it's multiplicative inverse, depending on direction, and (3) memorization of multiplication tables for single digits in the base. So, no, I don't think the “multiplication is repeated addition” thing is something people are exposed to and then never use.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >nonnegative integers, Why, prey tell, did you make a distinction between positive and negative integers? Is it that repeated addition starts to fail as conceptual model there? >the fact that my multiplication is equivalent to repeated addition for nonnegative integers, .. Your claim seems to be that in some abstract way any algorithmic approach to multiplication relies on the fact that multiplying non-negative integers (there's that distinction again .. nasty stuff those negative integers are for your argument) can be rewritten as a repeated addition ... but that's not how people (not even children learning multiplication) do it. That's not how computers do it either. So no, algorithmically multiplying numbers is not the same thing as 'using' the concept of 'multiplication is repeated addition' in any sense, colloquial or otherwise. Also it starts feeling like you're begging the question when you claim that.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> As a matter of practically, neither people, nor computers actually compute multiplication in such a way. Even children, though they may be exposed to the 'multiplication is repeated addition' concept as an introduction to multiplication, are quickly ushered past this and it is never brought up again. The standard manual method of multiplication of large numbers relies on leveraging heavily: (1) the fact that my multiplication is equivalent to repeated addition for nonnegative integers, (2) the fact that shifting digit positions are equivalent to multiplication by the base (usually 10) or it's multiplicative inverse, depending on direction, and (3) memorization of multiplication tables for single digits in the base. So, no, I don't think the “multiplication is repeated addition” thing is something people are exposed to and then never use.

macspoofing 6y ago
>nonnegative integers, Why, prey tell, did you make a distinction between positive and negative integers? Is it that repeated addition starts to fail as conceptual model there? >the fact that my multiplication is equivalent to repeated addition for nonnegative integers, .. Your claim seems to be that in some abstract way any algorithmic approach to multiplication relies on the fact that multiplying non-negative integers (there's that distinction again .. nasty stuff those negative integers are for your argument) can be rewritten as a repeated addition ... but that's not how people (not even children learning multiplication) do it. That's not how computers do it either. So no, algorithmically multiplying numbers is not the same thing as 'using' the concept of 'multiplication is repeated addition' in any sense, colloquial or otherwise. Also it starts feeling like you're begging the question when you claim that.