Talk:Distributive property

message: I have many associates in the accounting field who are baffled when they divide a list of numbers and the sum of those results does not match the dividing the sum of the original numbers.  They have to start moving pennys around and they blame their electronic spreadsheets.  We all know that division has Distributivity, but the spreadsheet also rounds the numbers, and rounding does not have Distributive property.  I was looking for an online reference that could explain this well in language that accountants (not mathamaticians) could understand.  Could you help me with this? Is there an article on Non-distributivity?  Or could you perhaps provide examples of things that do not have Distributive property?  Thanks.
-Sandy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.138.248.226 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've stuck a few examples into the article (section Distributivity and rounding). Tell me if that helps; if you can find some good references it'd be good to have them here. –EdC 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This certainly deserves an explanation but the article is supposed to explain a piece of theoretical mathematics -- not a practical computational quirk. --90.185.76.189 (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading

message: I'd like to see this article be more clear on whether or not division is distributive over addition. It is, isn't it? But, I was confused about it from reading this article. Distributivity of division over addition is mentioned and invoked as though it were the case, but isn't explained to be so.
Thanks! Cherry Cotton 22:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Division (in the reals) is simply multiplication by the reciprocal (the multiplicative inverse) of the divisor, so distributivity follows immediately.  The same holds for the distributivity of multiplication (or division) over subtraction. –EdC 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to be careful though, because it only works the one way: (1 + 5)/7 = 1/7 + 5/7, but 1/(5 + 7) ≠ 1/5 + 1/7. Hope this helps. 10:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, never learned it yet. I'd listen to the above user. Lunakeet 12:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division 

message: I've removed this image because I think it's not very clear.. I've been looking at it but I've yet to see two multiplications taking place there.. there are four and eight Xs above the line and some more below it but I fail to see how this image clarifies the distributive law. What multiplication is taking place (4 * 2 = 8?) and where's the distributive law? - Simeon (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I do not believe that "distributivity" is a word. I suggest moving this page to Distributive property. I don't ever recall seeing "distributivity" in any mathematics journal. Cliff (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request move 

message: :(P \lor (Q \lor R)) \leftrightarrow ((P \lor Q) \land (P \lor R))
This formula is wrong. E.g. if P=false, Q=true, R =false then left side of the formula is true while right side is false.
Ivashikhmin (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution of disjunction over disjunction 

message: Distributivity of scalar multiplication wrt addition of scalars resp. vectors is mentioned explicitly on the Vector Space page. Clearly it is an important example, so it should be mentioned. 
Other examples of "mixed" distributive laws may abound. But this is a rather obvious one. Kluto (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scalar multiplication example is missing 

message: The article on vector spaces clearly describes two operations as "distriubtions" but the article on distribution uses a narrower definition that doesnt apply.  There is a contradiction between articles.
In the definition of the vector space (and possibly inner product), two sets are utilized.  In the case of vector spaces, one set is the set of vectors and the other is the set of scalars (which is a field). In the vectors we define a single binary operation called vector addition, and in the scalars we define two binary operations called field multiplication and field addition. We also define a fourth function, an automata to be precise, called scalar multiplication which operates between the field elements and the vector elements producing vectors.  We require "left distributivity" of scalar multiplication over vector addition.  We also require "right distributivity" of scalar multiplication over field addition. These arent real distributivity, as per this articles definition, because it operates on elements of two different sets, rather than being two operations on a single set.  Additionally, in the case of "right distributivity", the field addition turns into vector addition in the process; some sort of isomorphic mapping. This is one more problem with the distribution definition.
Im looking for a general definition to distributivity - a correction to these articles - that satisfies this dilemma. 50.35.97.238 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vector spaces and generalizations to several sets