This relies on a principle "other way" introduces but, in my opinion, is not explicit enough about: nm=n×1m. Could this be made more explicit at the end of the "other way" section? e.g. "What we've really shown here is that nm=n×1m".
I think this actually belongs in the Multiplication article, but you're quite right that I've not been explicit enough. I intend to have a meditation on the various ways that the notation is consistent, but this one doesn't need any division at all so it should appear earlier.
This does not seem like it'd be transparent, esp. at math 0? The popover also seems potentially confusing.
This relies on a principle "other way" introduces but, in my opinion, is not explicit enough about: nm=n×1m. Could this be made more explicit at the end of the "other way" section? e.g. "What we've really shown here is that nm=n×1m".
I think this actually belongs in the Multiplication article, but you're quite right that I've not been explicit enough. I intend to have a meditation on the various ways that the notation is consistent, but this one doesn't need any division at all so it should appear earlier.