Why can we multiply?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












My friend and I were discussing some mathematical philosophy and how the numbers systems were created when we reached a question. Why can we multiply two different number like this?:



Say we had to multiply 13*34. One may break this up like (10+3)*(30+4). Applying distributive property here will give us the answer of 442. We can also choose to multiply this as (6+7)(22+12). Intuitively, we can hypothesize that this should give us the same answer as 13*34. How can we prove that our answer will be equal regardless of how we break up the numbers?



Thanks










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 3




    This will depend wildly on how you have defined multiplication in the first place, and which axioms you're willing you let your proof rely on.
    – Henning Makholm
    39 mins ago











  • Is this a stupid question? Or is it ok to ask this.... I honestly can't tell
    – Dude156
    38 mins ago






  • 1




    You can do this because the distributive property works and is inviolate. Now why the universe (or our brains) work this way? Who knows?
    – fleablood
    31 mins ago







  • 2




    It's not a dumb question. Investigating structures where this isn't the case is a part of abstract algebra. If you take your question seriously you will be able to find out exactly what rules (in this algebraic structure) allow you to make these leaps.
    – Mason
    20 mins ago










  • Thanks for the comforting reply Mr. Mason. I've been thinking about these questions and I think I am going insane sometimes lol.
    – Dude156
    6 mins ago














up vote
4
down vote

favorite












My friend and I were discussing some mathematical philosophy and how the numbers systems were created when we reached a question. Why can we multiply two different number like this?:



Say we had to multiply 13*34. One may break this up like (10+3)*(30+4). Applying distributive property here will give us the answer of 442. We can also choose to multiply this as (6+7)(22+12). Intuitively, we can hypothesize that this should give us the same answer as 13*34. How can we prove that our answer will be equal regardless of how we break up the numbers?



Thanks










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 3




    This will depend wildly on how you have defined multiplication in the first place, and which axioms you're willing you let your proof rely on.
    – Henning Makholm
    39 mins ago











  • Is this a stupid question? Or is it ok to ask this.... I honestly can't tell
    – Dude156
    38 mins ago






  • 1




    You can do this because the distributive property works and is inviolate. Now why the universe (or our brains) work this way? Who knows?
    – fleablood
    31 mins ago







  • 2




    It's not a dumb question. Investigating structures where this isn't the case is a part of abstract algebra. If you take your question seriously you will be able to find out exactly what rules (in this algebraic structure) allow you to make these leaps.
    – Mason
    20 mins ago










  • Thanks for the comforting reply Mr. Mason. I've been thinking about these questions and I think I am going insane sometimes lol.
    – Dude156
    6 mins ago












up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











My friend and I were discussing some mathematical philosophy and how the numbers systems were created when we reached a question. Why can we multiply two different number like this?:



Say we had to multiply 13*34. One may break this up like (10+3)*(30+4). Applying distributive property here will give us the answer of 442. We can also choose to multiply this as (6+7)(22+12). Intuitively, we can hypothesize that this should give us the same answer as 13*34. How can we prove that our answer will be equal regardless of how we break up the numbers?



Thanks










share|cite|improve this question















My friend and I were discussing some mathematical philosophy and how the numbers systems were created when we reached a question. Why can we multiply two different number like this?:



Say we had to multiply 13*34. One may break this up like (10+3)*(30+4). Applying distributive property here will give us the answer of 442. We can also choose to multiply this as (6+7)(22+12). Intuitively, we can hypothesize that this should give us the same answer as 13*34. How can we prove that our answer will be equal regardless of how we break up the numbers?



Thanks







algebra-precalculus arithmetic






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 40 mins ago









Henning Makholm

233k16298531




233k16298531










asked 48 mins ago









Dude156

32712




32712







  • 3




    This will depend wildly on how you have defined multiplication in the first place, and which axioms you're willing you let your proof rely on.
    – Henning Makholm
    39 mins ago











  • Is this a stupid question? Or is it ok to ask this.... I honestly can't tell
    – Dude156
    38 mins ago






  • 1




    You can do this because the distributive property works and is inviolate. Now why the universe (or our brains) work this way? Who knows?
    – fleablood
    31 mins ago







  • 2




    It's not a dumb question. Investigating structures where this isn't the case is a part of abstract algebra. If you take your question seriously you will be able to find out exactly what rules (in this algebraic structure) allow you to make these leaps.
    – Mason
    20 mins ago










  • Thanks for the comforting reply Mr. Mason. I've been thinking about these questions and I think I am going insane sometimes lol.
    – Dude156
    6 mins ago












  • 3




    This will depend wildly on how you have defined multiplication in the first place, and which axioms you're willing you let your proof rely on.
    – Henning Makholm
    39 mins ago











  • Is this a stupid question? Or is it ok to ask this.... I honestly can't tell
    – Dude156
    38 mins ago






  • 1




    You can do this because the distributive property works and is inviolate. Now why the universe (or our brains) work this way? Who knows?
    – fleablood
    31 mins ago







  • 2




    It's not a dumb question. Investigating structures where this isn't the case is a part of abstract algebra. If you take your question seriously you will be able to find out exactly what rules (in this algebraic structure) allow you to make these leaps.
    – Mason
    20 mins ago










  • Thanks for the comforting reply Mr. Mason. I've been thinking about these questions and I think I am going insane sometimes lol.
    – Dude156
    6 mins ago







3




3




This will depend wildly on how you have defined multiplication in the first place, and which axioms you're willing you let your proof rely on.
– Henning Makholm
39 mins ago





This will depend wildly on how you have defined multiplication in the first place, and which axioms you're willing you let your proof rely on.
– Henning Makholm
39 mins ago













Is this a stupid question? Or is it ok to ask this.... I honestly can't tell
– Dude156
38 mins ago




Is this a stupid question? Or is it ok to ask this.... I honestly can't tell
– Dude156
38 mins ago




1




1




You can do this because the distributive property works and is inviolate. Now why the universe (or our brains) work this way? Who knows?
– fleablood
31 mins ago





You can do this because the distributive property works and is inviolate. Now why the universe (or our brains) work this way? Who knows?
– fleablood
31 mins ago





2




2




It's not a dumb question. Investigating structures where this isn't the case is a part of abstract algebra. If you take your question seriously you will be able to find out exactly what rules (in this algebraic structure) allow you to make these leaps.
– Mason
20 mins ago




It's not a dumb question. Investigating structures where this isn't the case is a part of abstract algebra. If you take your question seriously you will be able to find out exactly what rules (in this algebraic structure) allow you to make these leaps.
– Mason
20 mins ago












Thanks for the comforting reply Mr. Mason. I've been thinking about these questions and I think I am going insane sometimes lol.
– Dude156
6 mins ago




Thanks for the comforting reply Mr. Mason. I've been thinking about these questions and I think I am going insane sometimes lol.
– Dude156
6 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













There are two ways I see to answer this question. One is from an axiomatic standpoint, where numbers are merely symbols on paper that are required to follow certain rules. The other uses the interpretation of multiplication as computing area. The former would take a good 5-10 pages to build up from the Peano axioms.



For the latter, you can draw a rectangle 13 units by 34 units. Break one side into 10 units and 3 units, and the other side into 30 units and 4 units. At this point, you should see that this decomposes the rectangle into four pieces, corresponding to the four terms you get from the distributive rule. The various was to compute $13 cdot 34$ are all just ways to decompose the rectangle, and at the end of the day they all compute the same number: the area of the rectangle.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • But would that be a proof? Or would it just be intuition? Idk, i've seen multiplication defined wildly differently. Some folks use multiplication as repeated addition, while others use it as area. What is the correct interpretation?
    – Dude156
    36 mins ago






  • 1




    @Dude156: Defining multiplication as repeated addition is the axiomatic viewpoint I was referring to. And one can prove the distributive property from this definition, without any reference to area. However you should also see the definition of area, where the sides are whole numbers, as repeated addition. What the area interpretation offers is a way to see geometrically what's going on, and in my opinion, it greatly clarifies what's going on with the distributive property.
    – RghtHndSd
    29 mins ago










  • There is no one "correct" interpretation. But repeated addition only works for multiplying by integers. And integer area is repeated addition ....
    – fleablood
    27 mins ago

















up vote
1
down vote













Well, that is literally what the distributive law tells you. It tells you that $$(a+b)(c+d)=a(c+d)+b(c+d)=ac+ad+bc+bd$$ and so whenever you break up the two factors of a product as a sum, you can use the "pieces" to compute the product.



So what you are really asking for is a proof of the distributive law itself. What constitutes a "proof" of such a basic fact depends heavily on what definitions of "numbers" and the operations on them that you are using (for some definitions, the distributive law is simply an axiom that you assume). But here is an intuitive explanation that works for natural numbers (and this can be turned into a rigorous proof if you define arithmetic of natural numbers in terms of cardinalities of sets).



We want to prove that $(a+b)c=ac+bc$. What does a product $xy$ of natural numbers mean? Well, it means you draw a grid of dots with $x$ rows and $y$ columns, and count up the total number of dots. So, to compute $(a+b)c$, you draw a grid with $a+b$ rows and $c$ columns. Now we observe that we can split such a grid into two pieces: the top $a$ rows and the bottom $b$ rows. The top $a$ rows form a grid with $a$ rows and $c$ columns, so they have $ac$ dots. The bottom $b$ rows form a grid with $b$ rows and $c$ columns, so they have $bc$ dots. In total, then, we have $ac+bc$ dots, so $(a+b)c=ac+bc$.



(In the computation of $(a+b)(c+d)$ above I used the distributive law in two different versions, one with the sum on the left side of the product and one with the sum on the right side of the product. You can prove the version with the sum on the right side of the product in the same way (you just split up the columns instead of the rows), or you can deduce it from the other version using commutativity of multiplication.)






share|cite|improve this answer




















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "",
    contentPolicyHtml: "",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2978505%2fwhy-can-we-multiply%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    4
    down vote













    There are two ways I see to answer this question. One is from an axiomatic standpoint, where numbers are merely symbols on paper that are required to follow certain rules. The other uses the interpretation of multiplication as computing area. The former would take a good 5-10 pages to build up from the Peano axioms.



    For the latter, you can draw a rectangle 13 units by 34 units. Break one side into 10 units and 3 units, and the other side into 30 units and 4 units. At this point, you should see that this decomposes the rectangle into four pieces, corresponding to the four terms you get from the distributive rule. The various was to compute $13 cdot 34$ are all just ways to decompose the rectangle, and at the end of the day they all compute the same number: the area of the rectangle.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • But would that be a proof? Or would it just be intuition? Idk, i've seen multiplication defined wildly differently. Some folks use multiplication as repeated addition, while others use it as area. What is the correct interpretation?
      – Dude156
      36 mins ago






    • 1




      @Dude156: Defining multiplication as repeated addition is the axiomatic viewpoint I was referring to. And one can prove the distributive property from this definition, without any reference to area. However you should also see the definition of area, where the sides are whole numbers, as repeated addition. What the area interpretation offers is a way to see geometrically what's going on, and in my opinion, it greatly clarifies what's going on with the distributive property.
      – RghtHndSd
      29 mins ago










    • There is no one "correct" interpretation. But repeated addition only works for multiplying by integers. And integer area is repeated addition ....
      – fleablood
      27 mins ago














    up vote
    4
    down vote













    There are two ways I see to answer this question. One is from an axiomatic standpoint, where numbers are merely symbols on paper that are required to follow certain rules. The other uses the interpretation of multiplication as computing area. The former would take a good 5-10 pages to build up from the Peano axioms.



    For the latter, you can draw a rectangle 13 units by 34 units. Break one side into 10 units and 3 units, and the other side into 30 units and 4 units. At this point, you should see that this decomposes the rectangle into four pieces, corresponding to the four terms you get from the distributive rule. The various was to compute $13 cdot 34$ are all just ways to decompose the rectangle, and at the end of the day they all compute the same number: the area of the rectangle.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • But would that be a proof? Or would it just be intuition? Idk, i've seen multiplication defined wildly differently. Some folks use multiplication as repeated addition, while others use it as area. What is the correct interpretation?
      – Dude156
      36 mins ago






    • 1




      @Dude156: Defining multiplication as repeated addition is the axiomatic viewpoint I was referring to. And one can prove the distributive property from this definition, without any reference to area. However you should also see the definition of area, where the sides are whole numbers, as repeated addition. What the area interpretation offers is a way to see geometrically what's going on, and in my opinion, it greatly clarifies what's going on with the distributive property.
      – RghtHndSd
      29 mins ago










    • There is no one "correct" interpretation. But repeated addition only works for multiplying by integers. And integer area is repeated addition ....
      – fleablood
      27 mins ago












    up vote
    4
    down vote










    up vote
    4
    down vote









    There are two ways I see to answer this question. One is from an axiomatic standpoint, where numbers are merely symbols on paper that are required to follow certain rules. The other uses the interpretation of multiplication as computing area. The former would take a good 5-10 pages to build up from the Peano axioms.



    For the latter, you can draw a rectangle 13 units by 34 units. Break one side into 10 units and 3 units, and the other side into 30 units and 4 units. At this point, you should see that this decomposes the rectangle into four pieces, corresponding to the four terms you get from the distributive rule. The various was to compute $13 cdot 34$ are all just ways to decompose the rectangle, and at the end of the day they all compute the same number: the area of the rectangle.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    There are two ways I see to answer this question. One is from an axiomatic standpoint, where numbers are merely symbols on paper that are required to follow certain rules. The other uses the interpretation of multiplication as computing area. The former would take a good 5-10 pages to build up from the Peano axioms.



    For the latter, you can draw a rectangle 13 units by 34 units. Break one side into 10 units and 3 units, and the other side into 30 units and 4 units. At this point, you should see that this decomposes the rectangle into four pieces, corresponding to the four terms you get from the distributive rule. The various was to compute $13 cdot 34$ are all just ways to decompose the rectangle, and at the end of the day they all compute the same number: the area of the rectangle.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 38 mins ago









    RghtHndSd

    4,92621431




    4,92621431











    • But would that be a proof? Or would it just be intuition? Idk, i've seen multiplication defined wildly differently. Some folks use multiplication as repeated addition, while others use it as area. What is the correct interpretation?
      – Dude156
      36 mins ago






    • 1




      @Dude156: Defining multiplication as repeated addition is the axiomatic viewpoint I was referring to. And one can prove the distributive property from this definition, without any reference to area. However you should also see the definition of area, where the sides are whole numbers, as repeated addition. What the area interpretation offers is a way to see geometrically what's going on, and in my opinion, it greatly clarifies what's going on with the distributive property.
      – RghtHndSd
      29 mins ago










    • There is no one "correct" interpretation. But repeated addition only works for multiplying by integers. And integer area is repeated addition ....
      – fleablood
      27 mins ago
















    • But would that be a proof? Or would it just be intuition? Idk, i've seen multiplication defined wildly differently. Some folks use multiplication as repeated addition, while others use it as area. What is the correct interpretation?
      – Dude156
      36 mins ago






    • 1




      @Dude156: Defining multiplication as repeated addition is the axiomatic viewpoint I was referring to. And one can prove the distributive property from this definition, without any reference to area. However you should also see the definition of area, where the sides are whole numbers, as repeated addition. What the area interpretation offers is a way to see geometrically what's going on, and in my opinion, it greatly clarifies what's going on with the distributive property.
      – RghtHndSd
      29 mins ago










    • There is no one "correct" interpretation. But repeated addition only works for multiplying by integers. And integer area is repeated addition ....
      – fleablood
      27 mins ago















    But would that be a proof? Or would it just be intuition? Idk, i've seen multiplication defined wildly differently. Some folks use multiplication as repeated addition, while others use it as area. What is the correct interpretation?
    – Dude156
    36 mins ago




    But would that be a proof? Or would it just be intuition? Idk, i've seen multiplication defined wildly differently. Some folks use multiplication as repeated addition, while others use it as area. What is the correct interpretation?
    – Dude156
    36 mins ago




    1




    1




    @Dude156: Defining multiplication as repeated addition is the axiomatic viewpoint I was referring to. And one can prove the distributive property from this definition, without any reference to area. However you should also see the definition of area, where the sides are whole numbers, as repeated addition. What the area interpretation offers is a way to see geometrically what's going on, and in my opinion, it greatly clarifies what's going on with the distributive property.
    – RghtHndSd
    29 mins ago




    @Dude156: Defining multiplication as repeated addition is the axiomatic viewpoint I was referring to. And one can prove the distributive property from this definition, without any reference to area. However you should also see the definition of area, where the sides are whole numbers, as repeated addition. What the area interpretation offers is a way to see geometrically what's going on, and in my opinion, it greatly clarifies what's going on with the distributive property.
    – RghtHndSd
    29 mins ago












    There is no one "correct" interpretation. But repeated addition only works for multiplying by integers. And integer area is repeated addition ....
    – fleablood
    27 mins ago




    There is no one "correct" interpretation. But repeated addition only works for multiplying by integers. And integer area is repeated addition ....
    – fleablood
    27 mins ago










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Well, that is literally what the distributive law tells you. It tells you that $$(a+b)(c+d)=a(c+d)+b(c+d)=ac+ad+bc+bd$$ and so whenever you break up the two factors of a product as a sum, you can use the "pieces" to compute the product.



    So what you are really asking for is a proof of the distributive law itself. What constitutes a "proof" of such a basic fact depends heavily on what definitions of "numbers" and the operations on them that you are using (for some definitions, the distributive law is simply an axiom that you assume). But here is an intuitive explanation that works for natural numbers (and this can be turned into a rigorous proof if you define arithmetic of natural numbers in terms of cardinalities of sets).



    We want to prove that $(a+b)c=ac+bc$. What does a product $xy$ of natural numbers mean? Well, it means you draw a grid of dots with $x$ rows and $y$ columns, and count up the total number of dots. So, to compute $(a+b)c$, you draw a grid with $a+b$ rows and $c$ columns. Now we observe that we can split such a grid into two pieces: the top $a$ rows and the bottom $b$ rows. The top $a$ rows form a grid with $a$ rows and $c$ columns, so they have $ac$ dots. The bottom $b$ rows form a grid with $b$ rows and $c$ columns, so they have $bc$ dots. In total, then, we have $ac+bc$ dots, so $(a+b)c=ac+bc$.



    (In the computation of $(a+b)(c+d)$ above I used the distributive law in two different versions, one with the sum on the left side of the product and one with the sum on the right side of the product. You can prove the version with the sum on the right side of the product in the same way (you just split up the columns instead of the rows), or you can deduce it from the other version using commutativity of multiplication.)






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      Well, that is literally what the distributive law tells you. It tells you that $$(a+b)(c+d)=a(c+d)+b(c+d)=ac+ad+bc+bd$$ and so whenever you break up the two factors of a product as a sum, you can use the "pieces" to compute the product.



      So what you are really asking for is a proof of the distributive law itself. What constitutes a "proof" of such a basic fact depends heavily on what definitions of "numbers" and the operations on them that you are using (for some definitions, the distributive law is simply an axiom that you assume). But here is an intuitive explanation that works for natural numbers (and this can be turned into a rigorous proof if you define arithmetic of natural numbers in terms of cardinalities of sets).



      We want to prove that $(a+b)c=ac+bc$. What does a product $xy$ of natural numbers mean? Well, it means you draw a grid of dots with $x$ rows and $y$ columns, and count up the total number of dots. So, to compute $(a+b)c$, you draw a grid with $a+b$ rows and $c$ columns. Now we observe that we can split such a grid into two pieces: the top $a$ rows and the bottom $b$ rows. The top $a$ rows form a grid with $a$ rows and $c$ columns, so they have $ac$ dots. The bottom $b$ rows form a grid with $b$ rows and $c$ columns, so they have $bc$ dots. In total, then, we have $ac+bc$ dots, so $(a+b)c=ac+bc$.



      (In the computation of $(a+b)(c+d)$ above I used the distributive law in two different versions, one with the sum on the left side of the product and one with the sum on the right side of the product. You can prove the version with the sum on the right side of the product in the same way (you just split up the columns instead of the rows), or you can deduce it from the other version using commutativity of multiplication.)






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        Well, that is literally what the distributive law tells you. It tells you that $$(a+b)(c+d)=a(c+d)+b(c+d)=ac+ad+bc+bd$$ and so whenever you break up the two factors of a product as a sum, you can use the "pieces" to compute the product.



        So what you are really asking for is a proof of the distributive law itself. What constitutes a "proof" of such a basic fact depends heavily on what definitions of "numbers" and the operations on them that you are using (for some definitions, the distributive law is simply an axiom that you assume). But here is an intuitive explanation that works for natural numbers (and this can be turned into a rigorous proof if you define arithmetic of natural numbers in terms of cardinalities of sets).



        We want to prove that $(a+b)c=ac+bc$. What does a product $xy$ of natural numbers mean? Well, it means you draw a grid of dots with $x$ rows and $y$ columns, and count up the total number of dots. So, to compute $(a+b)c$, you draw a grid with $a+b$ rows and $c$ columns. Now we observe that we can split such a grid into two pieces: the top $a$ rows and the bottom $b$ rows. The top $a$ rows form a grid with $a$ rows and $c$ columns, so they have $ac$ dots. The bottom $b$ rows form a grid with $b$ rows and $c$ columns, so they have $bc$ dots. In total, then, we have $ac+bc$ dots, so $(a+b)c=ac+bc$.



        (In the computation of $(a+b)(c+d)$ above I used the distributive law in two different versions, one with the sum on the left side of the product and one with the sum on the right side of the product. You can prove the version with the sum on the right side of the product in the same way (you just split up the columns instead of the rows), or you can deduce it from the other version using commutativity of multiplication.)






        share|cite|improve this answer












        Well, that is literally what the distributive law tells you. It tells you that $$(a+b)(c+d)=a(c+d)+b(c+d)=ac+ad+bc+bd$$ and so whenever you break up the two factors of a product as a sum, you can use the "pieces" to compute the product.



        So what you are really asking for is a proof of the distributive law itself. What constitutes a "proof" of such a basic fact depends heavily on what definitions of "numbers" and the operations on them that you are using (for some definitions, the distributive law is simply an axiom that you assume). But here is an intuitive explanation that works for natural numbers (and this can be turned into a rigorous proof if you define arithmetic of natural numbers in terms of cardinalities of sets).



        We want to prove that $(a+b)c=ac+bc$. What does a product $xy$ of natural numbers mean? Well, it means you draw a grid of dots with $x$ rows and $y$ columns, and count up the total number of dots. So, to compute $(a+b)c$, you draw a grid with $a+b$ rows and $c$ columns. Now we observe that we can split such a grid into two pieces: the top $a$ rows and the bottom $b$ rows. The top $a$ rows form a grid with $a$ rows and $c$ columns, so they have $ac$ dots. The bottom $b$ rows form a grid with $b$ rows and $c$ columns, so they have $bc$ dots. In total, then, we have $ac+bc$ dots, so $(a+b)c=ac+bc$.



        (In the computation of $(a+b)(c+d)$ above I used the distributive law in two different versions, one with the sum on the left side of the product and one with the sum on the right side of the product. You can prove the version with the sum on the right side of the product in the same way (you just split up the columns instead of the rows), or you can deduce it from the other version using commutativity of multiplication.)







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 33 mins ago









        Eric Wofsey

        172k12198318




        172k12198318



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2978505%2fwhy-can-we-multiply%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

            How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?