The Time-Long Misconceptions in Classical Mathematics
Nishant Sahdev1, Chinmoy Bhattacharya2
1Nishant Sahdev, Department of Research & Development, Austin Paints & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata (West Bengal), India.
2Dr. Chinmoy Bhattacharya, Department of Research & Development, Austin Paints & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata (West Bengal), India.
Manuscript received on 19 January 2026 | First Revised Manuscript received on 27 January 2026 | Second Revised Manuscript received on 20 March 2026 | Manuscript Accepted on 15 April 2026 | Manuscript published on 30 April 2026 | PP: 11-21 | Volume-6 Issue-1, April 2026 | Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijam.A123606010426 | DOI: 10.54105/ijam.A1236.06010426
Open Access | Editorial and Publishing Policies | Cite | Zenodo | OJS | Indexing and Abstracting
© The Authors. Published by Lattice Science Publication (LSP). This is an open-access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Abstract: Many foundational rules in elementary and advanced mathematics are accepted as axiomatic, despite being introduced through heuristic or pedagogical arguments rather than strict logical or physical justification. This work undertakes a systematic analytical re-examination of several such widely accepted mathematical conventions to identify internal inconsistencies and clarify their conceptual basis. The study begins by reanalysing the four basic arithmetic operations—addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division—by reducing multiplication and division to repeated addition and subtraction. Within this framework, the conventional sign rules governing the multiplication of negative quantities are critically examined. It is shown that while the outcomes of these rules are operationally consistent, the standard logical justifications commonly provided are incomplete or internally inconsistent when interpreted in terms of direction, orientation, and repetition. Using geometric constructions and physically motivated examples, the work further examines the interpretation of signed quantities, demonstrating that positive and negative values naturally encode directionality rather than intrinsic magnitude. This perspective is extended to areas and volumes, which are typically assumed to be strictly non-negative. The analysis shows that signed areas and volumes can be meaningfully interpreted within a consistent mathematical–physical framework, thereby questioning one of the key assumptions underlying the introduction of imaginary quantities. The paper also revisits the treatment of fractional quantities, squaring operations, and dimensional comparisons, arguing that several commonly cited “paradoxes” arise from conflating quantities of different dimensions or from scaledependent representations rather than from inherent mathematical necessity. Additionally, division by zero and infinity is reinterpreted through the lens of repeated subtraction, yielding a physically intuitive understanding of divergence and null results. Finally, the exponential function and its Taylor series expansion are examined from combinatorial and geometric perspectives, offering an alternative interpretation of the exponential constant based on dimensional arrangements rather than abstract growth alone. Overall, this work does not seek to discard established mathematical tools, but to clarify their conceptual foundations by enforcing consistency across arithmetic, geometry, and physical interpretation. The results highlight the need for greater precision in distinguishing operational rules from their underlying logical and physical meanings.
Keywords: Mathematical Misconceptions, Negative Numbers, Imaginary Numbers, Division by Zero & Exponential Constant (e).
Scope of the Article: Number Theory