Author |
Topic: Redefining Negative Arithmetic (Read 1437 times) |
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender: 
Posts: 1825
|
 |
Redefining Negative Arithmetic
« on: Jul 7th, 2008, 9:52am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
A colleague of mine mentioned a conversation he had with one of his student's today who asked the question, "Why can't we define the product of two negatives to be negative?"
This is far from a naive question and was presented by a very astute learner who is currently studying complex numbers...
Suppose by definition that x*y = -|x*y| where x,y < 0.
For example, -4*-4 = -16. But then sqrt(-16) = -4 and there would be no need for imaginary numbers in this context.
Would this "definition" lead to a closed system with the real number arithmetic, or would the need for "imaginary" numbers appear elsewhere?
Of course, it would change a number of results that we have become used to, but would it still be a consistent and coherent system?
There are certainly going to be some problems...
A graph like y = x2 would resemble the cubic graph, but is this really a problem or just a matter of shifting conventions? Similarly with lines having negative gradients; they would "bounce" at the y-axis.
Although square roots would have one solution, division with negatives would be problematic: if -4*-4 = -16 and 4*-4 = -16 then -16/-4 = +-4.
(4-1)-1 = (1/4)-1 = 4, but using laws of indices, (4-1)-1 = 4-1*-1 = 4-1 = 1/4.
Any thoughts?
|
|
 IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Redefining Negative Arithmetic
« Reply #1 on: Jul 7th, 2008, 11:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
It seems a bit inconvenient.
-1*(2 + -3) = -1*2 + -1*-3 = -2 + -3 = -5; so we can scratch distribution.
-1 - (-1) = -1 + -1*(-1) = -1+-1 = -2; so subtraction is no longer adding the additive inverse.
etc.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: Redefining Negative Arithmetic
« Reply #2 on: Jul 7th, 2008, 12:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
The distributive law could be rescued by revised definitions:
+ times + = +
+ times - = -
- times + = +
- times - = -
E.g.-1(2-3) = -1*-1 = -1
-1(2-3) = -1*2 + -1*-3 = 2 - 3 = -1
2(3-4) = 2*-1 = -2
2(3-4) = 2*3 + 2*-4 = 6 - 8 = -2
And although associativity still holds, can commutativity be sacrificed?
4*-4 <> -4*4
Also division becomes horribly ambiguous:
4*4 = 16 => 16/4 = 4 (1)
4*-4 = -16 => -16/-4 = 4 or -16/4 = -4
-4*4 = 16 => 16/4 = -4 (2) or 16/-4 = 4
-4*-4 = -16 => -16/-4 = -4
So 16/4 (1) does not necessarily equal 16/4 (2).
However, problems are encountered with division in modular arithmetic.
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7527
|
|
Re: Redefining Negative Arithmetic
« Reply #3 on: Jul 8th, 2008, 12:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 7th, 2008, 12:18pm, Sir Col wrote:The distributive law could be rescued by revised definitions:
+ times + = +
+ times - = -
- times + = +
- times - = -
|
|
Then I guess we have to do without an identity element for multiplication. 
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 8th, 2008, 1:17am by Grimbal » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Eigenray
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1948
|
|
Re: Redefining Negative Arithmetic
« Reply #4 on: Jul 8th, 2008, 5:05am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 7th, 2008, 12:18pm, Sir Col wrote:The distributive law could be rescued by revised definitions:
+ times + = +
+ times - = -
- times + = +
- times - = - |
|
But then you lose distributivity from the right:
(a - b)c  ac + bc.
All in all, it seems like a lot to give up just to stop people from asking why "a negative times a negative equals a positive."
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7527
|
|
Re: Redefining Negative Arithmetic
« Reply #5 on: Jul 8th, 2008, 5:16am » |
Quote Modify
|
Yet, GF(2) has -a·-b = -|a·b| and it still has some use  .
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print