3*2 = 6

Why does english language call the first factor (3) multiplicand and the other one (2) multiplier? What's the difference? I think both numbers have the same function

- Thread starter passengerman
- Start date

3*2 = 6

Why does english language call the first factor (3) multiplicand and the other one (2) multiplier? What's the difference? I think both numbers have the same function

The forum is not really equipped to teach mathematics, which are universal - an Indian teacher will be able to help.I think both numbers have the same function

'multiplicand' is in the W-R dictionary, but isn't much used; sounds old fashioned. In some settings the two are quite different. My garden is 10 feet long. I want to double its size (by changing its length). 10 feet is the length, the base figure, the multiplicand, and 2 is the multiplier. Of course if you simply write 10 x 2, then obviously we can just say 'first factor' and 'second factor' to distinguish; they're both factors.

3*2 = 6

Why does english language call the first factor (3) multiplicand and the other one (2) multiplier? What's the difference? I think both numbers have the same function

==

Note:

Last edited:

In basic arithmetic, multiplication is an operation with the **commutative** property. That means **3 * 2** has the same result as **2 * 3**. However division is **not commutative**. That means **3/2** is not the same as **2/3**. Old-fashioned words for division: dividend, divisor, quotient. Old-fashioned words for multiplication: multiplicand, multiplier, product. We have similar old-fashioned words we use with addition (which is commutative) and subtraction (not commutative). So there are 4 sets of words, all similar.

These were old-fashioned words in 1955, when I learned arithmetic. By today they are very old-fashioned.

You can ask "why" about this and many other things in a language. But languages were never "designed", so there was never a "reason for it to be this way". All that exists is history. For the history of English words, I go to the website "etymonline.com" (etymology online).

That website says "multiplicand" comes from Latin "multiplicandus" meaning "to be multiplied". So perhaps "multiplicand" dates back 2,000 years or more, to arithmetic lessons in Latin, in ancient Rome.

These were old-fashioned words in 1955, when I learned arithmetic. By today they are very old-fashioned.

You can ask "why" about this and many other things in a language. But languages were never "designed", so there was never a "reason for it to be this way". All that exists is history. For the history of English words, I go to the website "etymonline.com" (etymology online).

That website says "multiplicand" comes from Latin "multiplicandus" meaning "to be multiplied". So perhaps "multiplicand" dates back 2,000 years or more, to arithmetic lessons in Latin, in ancient Rome.

Last edited:

When I learned to multiply, which was before 1955, the result of multiplication was called the... Old-fashioned words for multiplication: multiplicand, multiplier, result...