Negative numbers: some whys

I have no idea why, but I woke up this morning thinking about negative numbers. The first question that occurred to me is: why are they necessary? Then I remembered scientific notation, so obviously, that’s one application. Also, it’s a way to express cold temperatures on various scales. Other than that, one can’t have a -1 of anything tangible.

So then I was turning over the math rules for dealing with negatives and remembered that if you add negatives, you get a larger negative; add a negative and positive, you get the difference; and these two rules make sense, particularly when dealing with exponents. I can also see how, say, (4)x(-4)=-16

But when you multiply two negatives, you get a positive, and this brought me to a halt. For some reason, I can’t logically get my head around this. Or am I mis-remembering the rule?

For the same reason that if you add negatives you get a larger negative. All multiplication does is give us a shorthand way of adding, so

(-2)*(-3) is the same as (-2)+(-2)+(-2).

Get it?

SSG § Schwartz

If you are losing $10 a day, take today’s money as datum and in five days time you have 5 x (-$10) = -$50.

But five days ago, taking today as datum, you had (-5) x (-$10) = $50.

Actually, -2 * -3 is the same as - (-2) - (-2) - (-2), or +6.

If so, the following website needs to be fixed:
(-2)*(-3) = 6

(-2)+(-2)+(-2) = -6

(-2)*(-3) is the same as (-2)+(-2)+(-2) = false

No.

That gets you -6.

The rule is a negative times a negative must be positive.

Speed and velocity make a lot of use of negative numbers and with that something’s position with respect to something else.

Often times it’s easier (for the math) to say you are traveling -10mph South rather then 10mph North. Another example might be that if you are looking at two objects. One is 10 feet off the ground, the other is 5 feet off the ground. That might work just fine, but it might make the math a lot easier if you could say the higher object was at 0 feet and the lower object at -5 feet (WRT to higher object).
Yet another example, time. Event A happens at 3 seconds, Event B happens at 5 seconds and they all lead up to Event C which happens at 7 seconds. If what we are really interested in is Event C and what happens after it, it would probably be easier to say Event C happened at T=0, Event A at T=-4 and Event B at T=-2, that way when we want to look at how long certain things after Event C took place we don’t have to subtract 7 seconds off of everything.

That makes sense, sort of. I suppose in the larger sense of physics and finance, it’s perfectly logical. I never had a problem with manipulating positive and negative numbers, but as was usual in the day, nobody ever explained the practical applications. The beautiful logic of algebra and trig never made sense to me until I entered the working world.

SSG Schwartz: we all have bad days, dude. :stuck_out_tongue:

I missed the edit window, and hoped that my post would go unnoticed by those who know what they are talking about. :smack:

SSG (P) Schwartz

Here’s how to understand negative numbers that makes understanding complex numbers even easier.

First, realize that numbers are not objects, they are foremost operators. You can’t have “one” or “two”, you always have “one mouse” or “two cats”; that is, you apply your operator to your base object, in basically what amounts to a form of multiplication. When you multiply numbers, you compose the operators; that is, you do one of the operators, then take that result and do the other. When you add them, you add their effects together and figure out what operator would give that effect. Notice that in general you can’t multiply “three houses” and “four cars” unless you have defined what it means to multiply by a house or a car, or at very least that specific operation. Similarly, if you try to add them, you’ll just get “three houses plus four cars” unless you’ve specifically defined an operator that does exactly that. Also, while you can add “one cat” and “two cats”, you can’t multiply them unless you know what “cat” times “cat” is.

Now above a number is defined as an operation on an object. Consider instead we define it as an operation on a segment of the number line; “4 cubits” means go forward a cubit (whatever that happens to be) 4 times. Now, define the operation “-” as “turn around”, and define “-X” as “-” applied to “X”, so that “-6 furlongs” means “turn around, then go a furlong 6 times”.

Now what happens when we multiply two of these operators? If we multiply “3 times 4”, we pick a distance, say angstrom, then go 4 angstroms forward. Now we reset ourselves, take “4 angstroms forward” as our base distance, and move that distance forward 3 times, clearly ended up 12 angstroms forward. If we multiply “-2 times 3” angstroms, we first measure 3 angstroms forward, then reset ourselves facing forwards, turn around to face backwards and go that distance twice, leaving us with the distance 6 angstroms backwards. For “2 times -3”, we first measure 3 angstroms backwards, then reset ourselves, face forwards, and step that distance twice. But since we measured that step as going backwards, each step is “3 angstroms backwards” leaving us at “6 angstroms backwards”.

Now the payoff: for “-4 times -5” angstroms, we first turn around and go 5 angstroms, then go back to the beginning, face forwards, but then turn around to face backwards as we’re multiplying by a negative, and now we step backwards as well since the distance we’re going is “5 angstroms backwards”. Thus we step 20 angstroms forward.

What about adding them? Now instead of applying a new operator to an old result, we stand at the distance of the first result and walk a distance specified by the second result. “5 angstroms” plus “-4 angstroms” means “walk 5 angstroms forward, turn around, walk 4 angstroms backwards”, leaving you at “1 angstrom forward”.

Now, just define i as “turn to the right”, and you’ll know all about the complex numbers. Or rather, a different version of them, because usually people define it as “turn to the left”, but it really doesn’t matter.

Missed edit window. Better to say:

Thus we step 20 angstroms forward by stepping backwards while facing backwards.

That is, the reason two negatives multiply to a positive is that doing the operation “turn around” twice leaves you with no change in facing. If you want to turn around precisely so that you retrace your steps, turning around again the same amount will always put you back on the original trail. This is more or less an axiom I suppose; I can’t think of a good reason other than “that’s the way it works in this universe”. I might be able to sit down and derive -1 * -1 = 1 using only the axioms of arithmetic based on the fact that 1 + -1 = 0, but I doubt it would give a good intuitive physical reason why it was true.

Well, you can’t exactly have -5 apples, but if you have 100 apples and your pig eats 5 every day, the increase in your apple supply is -5 per day.

The convention is to express velocity as a vector, which is a non-negative speed plus direction. In physics you wouldn’t say you’re going -10 MPH south. There might be certain applications where is could make more sense, like describing the velocity of a car in reverse gear, but normally you wouldn’t talk about negative velocity.

I’m not sure about that. Expanding on what Malacandra said:

Let’s say you have zero dollars in your pocket. Roughly a hundred days ago, you had 100 dollars in your pocket and struck a deal with me: in exchange for me painting your house, you’d owe me a dollar a day for a year. You paid me a dollar a day each day since – it’s the only money you’ve spent – but now you’re out of cash, and no more is coming your way any time soon.

Tomorrow, you’ll have -1 dollar: you’ll still have zero in your pocket, but you’ll owe me one. Three days from now, it’ll be (-1) x (+3) = -3 dollars. Nine days from now, it’ll be (-3) x (+3) = -9 dollars. Nine days ago, you had (-3) x (-3) +9 dollars, because you get a positive number when multiplying a negative by a negative.

I can see it as a descriptive, but not as a thing. I can also see getting hostile looks from the plumber as I enlighten him.

Bingo. I was about to step in to post something like this myself, but now you’ve done it so well, there’s little point.

The one thing I’d say is that I think your explanation of multiplication could be worded a little more simply, so I’ll just reword it a bit: If we think of p and q as operators, then the operator p * q is the operator which just does p and q one after another.

So if 1 is the operator “Stay the same” and -1 is the operator “Turn around”, then we have that -1 * -1 = “Turn around, then turn around again”, which is, in most contexts, the same as “Stay the same” = 1.

Well done, indeed, although he kind of lost me on the neg x neg part.

Similarly, -4 is “Turn around and become 4 times as large”, and -5 is “Turn around and become 5 times as large”, so -4 * -5 is “Turn around, become four times as large, then turn around and become 5 times as large”, the cumulative effect of which is to become 20 times as large but still pointing in the same direction; i.e., -4 * -5 = +20.

I actually have found parts of high level mathematics much easier to understand now that the idea that “numbers are operators” is in my head. Specifically, I had a hard time wrapping my mind around multidimensional derivatives due to the old idea that a 1-dimensional derivative was “a number” but other derivatives were multidimensional linear transformations. Then I saw the light that the base case was also a linear transformation in one dimension, and it all made sense!

(Actually, on re-read, you did already note simply that multiplication is just performing operations one after another; it’s just that the particular way you illustrated the examples seemed unnecessarily confusing, with the talk about walking and resetting base distances and so on. So it’s really the examples I’m rewording (as above), not your explanation of multiplication, as such)

Bingo again. So far as I can tell from reading this thread, you are me. That is my life story as well.

It’s worth noting that the general method of recasting some multiplicative structure as a structure of composition of operators is essentially Cayley’s theorem (for groups and monoids), or, more generally, the Yoneda lemma (for categories), and is a very powerful yet ultimately very simple tool throughout mathematics even more broadly than just in the context of linear operators (though that is one very ubiquitous example as well, amounting to the group-enriched case of the Yoneda lemma).

The negative times a negative thing I had hoped to explain by showing exactly what was happening in the negative * positive and positive * negative cases, then combining them.

In each case of multiplication, you do one operation on your base distance and determine how you have to step in order to get to the result from the origin facing forwards. When the first operation is negative, you end up behind yourself so that when you’re facing forwards you have to step backwards to get there. When the second operation is negative, the first thing you do is turn around, then you start taking steps that are identical to the distance found in the first operation. Combining these, you end up turning around, then stepping backwards, which gives the same result as stepping forward.

Again, I don’t think there’s a great underlying explanation for why the operation required to retrace your steps is the same operation one gets if one rotates through half a full circle. That is, why, physically, does 1 + -1 = 0 imply -1 * -1 = 0? Well, here’s a simple mathematical proof that requires very few axioms:

1 + (-1) = 0
multiply by (-1) on the left of each side and distribute.
(-1) 1 + (-1)(-1) = (-1)0
The proof of 0
(-1) = 0 I’ll get to later. The fact that -11 = -1 is because 1 is defined as the multiplicative identity. Thus we have
-1 + (-1)
(-1) = 0
add 1 to the left of each side.
1 + (-1) + (-1)(-1) = 1 + 0
1 + 0 = 1 because 0 is the additive identity. 1 + (-1) = 0 by assumption.
0 + (-1)
(-1) = 1
Again, 0 is the additive identity so
(-1)*(-1) = 1
QED.

I can’t get my mind to come up with a convincing physical reason though.