There is a bit of a debate about whether or not multiplication should be defined as repeated addition:
https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_06_08.htm... https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_0708_08.h...
https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_06_08.htm... https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_0708_08.h...
> Telling students falsehoods on the assumption that they can be corrected later is rarely a good idea. And telling them that multiplication is repeated addition definitely requires undoing later.
I disagree. Understanding multiplication as repeated addition has always been an invaluable intuition, especially in the beginning, where explicit calculations are important. The biggest hurdle when introducing multiplication is getting them to understand the multiplication table. The fact that it is defined as a separate operation in the definition of ring/field is almost irrelevant in the pedagogical context, just as we don't start teaching real numbers with Dedekind cuts.
How do you define pi * e, with addition? How do you define 2m * 2m, with addition?
Those feel completely intuitive now, but students can get the first far more easily than the second.
Once you approximate them with rationals you can also imagine adding a fraction of the second multiplicand.
Even more basic is the 2.7 * 3.1 = 27 * 31 and what do I do with the decimal place question. Kids first intuition is often 83.7 because it was one from the right in the numbers they started with.
In that context pi * e exposes several different challenges to peoples mental models of multiplication. Granted most people are just going to plug it into a calculator and trust the answer without much thought, but such is life.
It's clear the multiplication as repeated addition holds for the natural numbers, which form a closed ring anyway. Pi and E are sufficiently advanced that by the time you get there you must understand that the operation being described by multiplication is not the same operation at all (depending on how one constructs the real numbers, multiplication of reals is multiplication of sets or functions)
It took us thousands of years to properly define real numbers. High school students can live without a perfect explanation, or we can just teach limits before college since they are the fundamental concept if calculus.
Probably you were taught how to multiply irrational by the property of powers (a^b * c^b = (a*c)^b etc.).
You were not taught a grand unifying theory of multiplication, you were taught how to manipulate operations to turn them into more useful operations.
Teaching these laws also prepares you for when a and b are just symbolic reals with no structure and those laws are the only thing you can use to manipulate them.
You can't teach "the truth" (whatever you hold that to be). It would set back education instead of advancing it. In this case too, perfect is the enemy of good.
Your example is quite bad because sqrt(2)*sqrt(2) = sqrt(2*2) = sqrt(4) = 2. So repeated addition works fine. Let's focus instead on pi*pi. The way calculators do this is precisely as some type of limiting sequence depending on how much precision you want. Because, one cannot "calculate" pi*pi exactly because it is irrational. So, you have 3*3, then 3.1*3.1, then 3.14*3.14, etc. which are all repeated additions with some division (e.g. 314*314/(100*100)). In reality, when multiplying two irrational numbers, we just use enough decimal points for floating point precision and then chop off any potentially erroneous digits after the multiplication.*
As others have pointed out, repeated addition as multiplication readily extends to rational numbers, then to irrational numbers as limits of rational sequences. This is exactly the progression that is taught in Rudin's analysis book and the way to construct the real numbers. At no point in time do you need to backtrack on repeated addition but you need to introduce new concepts division and limits. This is exactly teaching F=ma and then introducing relativity and quantum as the students gain more depth and break past the classical setting.
What is exponentiation? is 5^6 multiplying 5 for 6 times? sure, but how about 5^(-6)? what's up with that? and 5^(1/2)? and don't get me started on 5^(2/3)
5^(2/3) is two-thirds of the operation of multiplying by 5. Applying that operation three times results in multiplying by 5 for six-thirds times, or twice, and the result is 25.
5^-6 is multiplying by 5 negative-six times. What is multiplying a negative number of times? Dividing. You divide by 5 six times.