Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

There is a simple way to graphically represent positive numbers $x$ and $y$ multiplied using only a ruler and a compass: Just draw the rectangle with height $y$ in top of it side $x$ (or vice versa), like this

enter image description here

But is there a way to draw the number $xy$ directly on the real line (i.e. not as an area on top of the real line) by using only some standard drawing means like using a compass, a ruler, a straightedge etc. (i.e. not multiplying $x$ and $y$ out and then putting the number $xy$ at right spot), like indicated above ?

(I think this question actually asks if the multiplication is representable as a composition of (the mathematical translation of) operations of drawing circles using a straightedge etc.)

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 18 down vote accepted

You can do so, but if you want to represent the result of the multiplication again as a length you have to choose a unit. The ancient Greeks didn't come up with this idea; whence their products were always areas.

Responding to temo's comment: When the point $O\in g$ representing the number $0$ has been chosen the geometric construction for the sum of two numbers is scale invariant, as a consequence of $(\lambda x)+(\lambda y)=\lambda(x+y)$; but a similar identity for multiplication does not hold: $(\lambda x)\cdot(\lambda y)\ne\lambda(x\cdot y)$. You can test the effect in the figure by keeping $x$ and $y$ but choosing a new unit $1'$. The point $xy$ will now be at a different location.

enter image description here

share|cite|improve this answer
Nice! It took me a moment to work that out, but it's actually pretty simple. – MathematicalOrchid May 1 '12 at 12:15
Beautiful! But now I'm a little bit confused: What is the underlying cause that enables us to do addition without the choice of a unit, but not multiplication ? – temo May 1 '12 at 13:12
I saw this come up before when doing constructions with ruler and compass but didn't understand why a unit had to be picked until I thought about it in terms of groups. It's necessary because a priori we don't know if $x$ is bigger or smaller than the multiplicative identity, or unit. Let us consider only positive numbers for now. If $x$ is bigger than the unit, then multiplication by $x$ must make the number bigger. Likewise, if it is smaller, multiplication makes the number smaller. For addition, the identity of the group is 0 and it is easier to say in some sense a number's relation to 0. – Steven-Owen May 1 '12 at 19:10
Excuse me. What is $\lambda$? – Voyska Sep 10 '13 at 9:37
@Gustavo Bandeira: $\lambda$ is an arbitrary scaling factor. The identity $(\lambda x)+(\lambda y)=\lambda(x+y)$ means that addition of lengths behaves properly under scaling. – Christian Blatter Sep 10 '13 at 13:28

Here is a hint and an answer ($a+b$, $a-b$, $\frac ab$ may be done too : see the link).

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.