multipl ied by equ als

me. me.
me.

The eighth scene in a series of articles

on elementary mathematics.

written by Eugene Maier

designed and illustrated by Tyson Smith
The array model, with edge pieces—used to portray the product of two counting
numbers in Scene IV—can be adapted to portray the multiplication of integers.
Rather than considering the number of objects in a collection, one considers the
value of the collection.

Consider, for example, the array

shown here. Viewed as a picture of
the product of two counting numbers,
one observes that one edge has 2 pieces, the other
3 and the array has 6 tile. Thus we have a picture of a
product of counting numbers, in this case, a picture of 2 x 3 = 6.

But suppose, instead of considering the number of edge pieces and

the number of tile in the array, one considers the values of the
sets of edge pieces and the value of the array. One observes that the edges have
values +2 and +3, respectively, and the array has value +6. Thus, we have a
picture of a product of integers, in this case, a picture of +2 x +3 = +6.
There are many collections of edge pieces, other than those
shown on the previous page, that have values of +2 and +3.
For example, the edges might be those shown here.

The question is: How does one complete the

array when there are red as well as black edge
pieces? The answer to this question becomes
straightforward if one agrees to two conditions:
First, that the arithmetic of the positive integers
+2
replicate that of the counting numbers and,
second, that +1 be a multiplicative identity,
that is, multiplying an integer by +1 does not
change that integer. +3

As far as multiplication is concerned, the first of these conditions means that the
product of two positive integers can be found by considering the corresponding
product of counting numbers, e.g. +2 x +5 = +10 since 2 x 5 = 10.
The first condition also means that +1 is a multiplicative identity for the positive
integers since 1 is a multiplicative identity for the counting numbers, for example
+1 x +3 = +3 x +1 = +3 since 1 x 3 = 3 x 1 = 3. The second condition extends
this property of +1 to the entire set of integers, so that, for example, not only is
+1 x +3 = +3 x +1 = +3 but also +1 x –3 = –3 x +1 = –3.

In particular, +1 x +1 = +1 and +1 x –1 = –1 x +1 = –1 which, illustrated by

arrays with edge pieces, appear as follows:

+1 +1 -1
+1 -1 +1
+1 x +1 = +1 +1 x -1 = -1 -1 x +1 = -1

We notice the following: if a tile has two black edges, it is black, whereas if it has
I black and 1 red edge, it is red. Or to put it another way, if a tile has a black
edge, the color of the tile is that of the other edge.
Returning to the array which has the edge
pieces shown in frame 2, we can use what
we have learned about black edge pieces
to fill in those places in the array which
have a black edge:

+2

+3

What is left to fill in are those places where both edges

are red. The part of the array that has been completed
so far has value +4.
But +2 x +3 must equal +6, hence the two remaining places must be filled with
black tile:

+2

+3
+2 x +3 = +6

Note that whenever a tile has 2 black or 2 red edges, it is black; whenever it has
1 black and 1 red edge, it is red. Thus:

+1 x +1 = +1 –1 x –1 = +1 +1 x -1 = -1 -1 x +1 = -1
Below are some pictures of products in which the edge values are all
represented by minimal sets of edge pieces, that is the edges consist of pieces
all of the same color. We see that the product of 2 positive or 2 negative
integers is a positive integer and the product of a positive integer and a
negative integer is a negative integer.

+3 +3 -3

+2 -2 -2
+3 x +2 = +6 +3 x -2 = +6 -3 x -2 = +6
Division of integers can also be portrayed using an array
with edge pieces. For example, one can determine what
–12 ÷ +4 is by finding the other edge in an array of 12 red
+4 - 12
tile and an edge of 4 black pieces. Since the array is red,
the edges must have opposite colors. Thus the other edge
is composed of 3 red pieces. Hence, –12 ÷ +4 = –3.

Similarly, +12 ÷ –4 = –3, since the other edge ?

of black array with a red edge must be red, and
–12 ÷ –4 = +3, since the other edge of a red array with a red
edge must be black.

In general, the quotient of 2 positive integers or 2 negative

integers is a positive integer while a quotient involving a
positive and a negative integer is a negative integer.
 Products and quotients involving
0 0 0 warrant special mention. As
one sees in the figures,
0 x +4 = 0 x –4 = 0. The 2 rows
+4 -4
of the arrays are opposites of
0 x +4 = 0 0 x -4 = 0 one another and hence their net
value is 0. This will be the case
whatever value the bottom edge has, and hence any integer multiplied by 0 is 0.

To determine 0 ÷ +4, one wants to construct an

array whose value is 0 and has an edge whose
value is +4. The quotient is the value of the other
edge, which will consist of 1 black and 1 red +4 0 -4 0
piece and hence have value 0. Thus, 0 ÷ +4 = 0.
Similarly 0 ÷ –4 = 0. In like fashion, arrays can be
constructed to show that 0 divided by any positive
or negative number is 0. ? ?
The quotient 0 ÷ 0 is another matter. It is not difficult to construct an array which
has value 0 and has an edge of value 0. Shown below are 3 such arrays. The
value of the second edge in the first instance is +3, which would imply that 0 ÷ 0
= +3, while the value of the second edge in the next instance is +4, implying that
0 ÷ 0 = +4, whereas in the third instance, the value of the second edge is –5,
implying that 0 ÷ 0 = –5. Indeed, one can construct an array whose value is 0,
has one edge whose value is 0 and other edge has any positive or negative value
one wishes. Thus 0 ÷ 0 is an ambiguous notion and, hence, is excluded from
mathematical discourse.

0 0 0 0
0 0

? ?
?
But, what about a non-zero integer divided by 0? Suppose, for example, we try to
model +4 ÷ 0. To do that, we need to construct an array whose value is +4 and
has an edge whose value is 0. But this isn't possible, for if an array has an edge
whose value is 0, the array will have value zero. Hence, division of a non-zero
integer by 0 is not possible within the set of integers.

These 2 rows will always be opposite

0 0 of one another and have value 0 no
matter what this edge is.

To summarize: 0 times any integer is 0 and 0 divided by a

positive or negative integer is 0. Also, it is not possible to
divide a positive or negative integer by 0 and 0 ÷ 0 is
ambiguous. Thus, division by 0 is outlawed.
Gene says: Some teachers attempt to motivate the arithmetical
structure of the integers by contriving "applications" in which
negative numbers occur. I have never found this very satisfactory,
especially when it comes to multiplication because I know of no
applications—other than artificial ones—that are accessible to
pre-algebra students in which one is called upon to multiply two
negative numbers The development of the arithmetic of the integers
given here is based on a mathematical principle: whenever a set of numbers is
extended to a larger set of numbers, the arithmetical properties of the set being
extended should be preserved. Thus, when extending the counting numbers to the
integers, the preservation of the arithmetical properties of the counting numbers,
such as the role of 1 as a multiplicative identity and the multiplication tables,
dictates the arithmetic of the integers.

The fact that the product of two negatives is a positive seems to be a stumbling
block for many students. I suspect one of the reasons for this is that the integers
are generally introduced at the pre-algebra level and multiplying two negatives is
pretty much an academic matter until one encounters the need to expand
algebraic expressions such as (x – 2)(x -- 3).
FYI: Arithmetically speaking, the positive integers, +1, +2, +3, …, behave exactly
like the counting numbers, 1, 2, 3, …. That is, if, in any valid arithmetical
statement that holds in the set of positive integers, one replaces the positive
integer +n by the counting number n, the result is a valid statement in the set of
counting numbers. And conversely, if, in any true arithmetical statement in the set
of counting numbers, one replaces the counting number n by the positive integer
+n, the result is a true statement in the set of positive integers. (In mathematical
terminology, the set of positive integers and the set of counting numbers are said
to be isomorphic.) For example, in the statement +2 + +3 = +5, which is a true
statement about positive integers, replacing the positive integers +2, +3 and +5,
respectively by the counting numbers 2, 3 and 5, results in the statement 2 + 3 = 5,
which is a true statement about counting numbers.

Since the positive integers and the counting numbers have identical arithmetical
structures, we will no longer distinguish between them so, for example, the symbol
2 will refer both to the counting number 2 and the positive integer +2. Also, we
will adopt the standard practice of writing a negative number with its sign in
standard position rather than superscript position, for example we will write the
negative integer –2 as –2. Also, we will adopt the standard practice of using the
minus sign, –, rather than o( ), to represent the opposite of an integer, so, for
example, the statement o(–2) = 2 will be written –(–2) = 2.

Notice, with these conventions, the statement "the opposite of the positive integer
2 is the negative integer –2" rather than being written symbolically "o(2) = –2"
becomes the redundant appearing statement "–2 = –2". Thus, using customary
notational conventions, one cannot distinguish between the notion of "the
opposite of a positive integer" and "a negative integer". Since, indeed, the
opposite of a positive integer is a negative integer, the inability of the standard
notation to distinguish these two notions causes no computational difficulties.
END of SCENE 8: MULTIPLYING & DIVIDING INTEGERS
For comments and questions please email
Gene Maier at [email protected]

coming up next...
SCENE 9: FRACTIONS