This level-4 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

MathematicsTop‑priority This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofmathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Top This article has been rated asTop-priority on theproject's priority scale.

Archives

1

/Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than365 days may be automatically archived byLowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors arecase-sensitive in most browsers. This article containsbroken links to one or more targetanchors: [[Peano axioms#Arithmetic|Peano axioms]] AnchorPeano axioms#Arithmetic links to a specific web page:Arithmetic. The anchor (#Arithmetic) has beendeleted by other users before. The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking thepage history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed |Report an error

The middle dot is standard in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries where the period is used as a decimal point

Well, from my experience it's not true. Back in Poland, since the primary school, I'd been, like everyone else, taught to use the middle dot. We use the comma as the decimal mark. Now I study at an English university and it's English lecturers who use the period as the multiplication symbol. I had not even known the period could be used like this before I came here. So it doesn't look like the middle dot is standard in the UK.Ustt (talk)12:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went to school in Hungary. We never, in no circumstances use low period to denote multiplication. Middle dot is taught for multiplication sign. Alternatively, no sign between numbers and variable letters, or two variable letters, means multiplication. The × cross is used outside maths and physics literature. We understand period as a thousands separator although the official thousands separator is whitespace, so printed media would use whitespaces, not points. Decimal point is comma. Dot as decimal point is only accepted or used in computing in Hungary. --2A00:1028:8386:EC12:D8EE:B92:42E2:11F5 (talk)10:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the page. The documented behavior (middle dot as decimal) is archaic, but still seen in some older journals and eg the history dept of cambridge university. SeeInterpunct andDecimal Separator for more info, but the TLDR is, the UK is not out of step with the rest of the planet on this: since 1968 we use the SI system, which mandates either a period or a comma as the decimal separator. --207.191.44.146 (talk)18:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the x figure called a cross? This is not what the lay person thinks of when reading the word cross. Technically, I guess it is a saltire, but that word's is too arcane (Wikipedia even marks it as wrong as I write it). Is "ecks" really not what it is? Certainly as kids learning multiplication we considered it "ecks"/"ex".211.225.33.104 (talk)09:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilike the idea of calling it a saltire, though I don't usually think of a saltire as crossing at a 90° angle.Unschool07:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you need to distinguish the letter x from the operator ×, it is a bad idea to call × an ex, ecks, x figure or such. It _actually_ is a cross. A special kind of cross. If you want to specify which cross it is then say, the multiplication sign. Saltire is a word that calls for a dictionary. --2A00:1028:8386:EC12:D8EE:B92:42E2:11F5 (talk)09:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirectMultiplikand. The discussion will occur atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9#Multiplikand until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards,SONIC⁶⁷⁸00:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirectMultiplikator. The discussion will occur atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9#Multiplikator until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards,SONIC⁶⁷⁸00:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the method noted as used in Germany (and often used now in the US) is also found inGeorge Berkeley’sArithmetica (1707) - was this amongst its first appearances in an English text?ELSchissel (talk)02:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(though I am reminded now that the Berkeley book was written in Latin. Hrm.)ELSchissel (talk)02:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never learnedTeX orLaTeX, so perhaps the following critique of the sectionMultiplication § Product of two real numbers is way off base but, if I've misunderstood it, a clarification is surely needed to accommodate readers like me.

The claim, as I understand it, is:

If the real numbera is the least upper bound of a setA of rational numbers and the real numberb is the least upper bound of a setB of rational numbers, then their producta⋅b is the least upper bound of the setC of rational numbers that consists of all the products of a rational number inA and a rational number inB.

However, ifA contains a negative number such as −1 andB is not boundedbelow, then the setC will not be boundedabove; it will have no upper bounds and hence no least one.

What am I missing?Peter Brown (talk)03:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The previous text omitted to say thata andb were supposed positive. I have rewritten the section for fixing this and making the link with infinite decimals.D.Lazard (talk)17:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thanks.Peter Brown (talk)17:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A recent large contribution (16:33, 15 October 2022‎ by Fgnievinski) introduced an unreferenced section ('Definitions') near the top of the article. It contained useful text but as far as formal definitions go it seemed ad-hoc and not fundamental enough. e.g. the 'Integers' subsection rested on afait-accompli matrix rather than the defining laws leading to that matrix, i.e. the definition behind the result.

Elsewhere the Multiplication article has more authoritative language and cites Peano etc.; we could go even further and cite Artin or Ireland or other authors of adult books (not high school intro texts) covering arithmetic. But meanwhile I'll merge this uncited content with 'Multiplication of different kinds of numbers', to aid the older section's introductions.Mebden (talk)13:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@D.Lazard: you reverted this edit so I have introduced just now a compensatory flag to the Definition section indicating its problems. I think it would be a pity to lose the current Definitions text in any coming expert rewrite as the text might help with intuitive understanding nonetheless. But it doesn't belong anywhere near a Definitions section.Mebden (talk)13:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that section§ Definitions is poorly written, and this is the reason for which I have not removed the template, although I would have used another template, such as{{cleanup}}.

However, there is a large overlap between this article andProduct (mathematics) and there is no valid reason for thisWP:REDUNDANTFORK, as both articles are very elementary. This should be fixed, and aWP:MERGE seems the only reasonable solution. Indeed, most readers of these elementary article do not have a clear notion on the difference between a multiplication and a product. Thus, they would come at random to either article.D.Lazard (talk)17:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between12 February 2024 and14 June 2024. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Not Fidel (article contribs). Peer reviewers:Ahlluhn.

— Assignment last updated byAhlluhn (talk)00:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The summation definition in the natural numbers is incomplete. The case when r=1 needs to be included.75.191.107.254 (talk)13:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is included, as$\sum _{j=1}^{r}s=\underset{r\text{ times}}{\underbrace{s+s+\cdots +s}}$ reduces, whenr = 1, to$\sum _{j=1}^{1}s=\underset{1\text{ times}}{\underbrace{s+s+\cdots +s}}=s.$ This is included in the definition ofcapital-sigma notation.D.Lazard (talk)13:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find the naming of factors slightly inconsistent. The example expression 3×4 is phrased as “3 multiplied by 4”, but then the next paragraph talks about “3 (themultiplier) and 4 (themultiplicand)”. If 3 is “multiplied by” 4, the corresponding active voice would read: “4 multiplies 3”, which sounds like 4 should be the multiplier (thanks to its agent suffix) and 3 should be the multiplicand (thanks to its operand suffix), i.e. the quantity that is operated on.

This question may have some real-world consequences, as illustrated by this LinkedIn post:https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nemanja-mileti%C4%87-4209311a1_i-found-this-problem-on-linkedin-and-it-was-activity-7265048840594968576-wgGuPetr.Tesařík (talk)07:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class level-4 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Mathematics
• C-Class vital articles in Mathematics
• C-Class mathematics articles
• Top-priority mathematics articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles
• Pages with broken anchors