Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Books Education Media Technology

Improving Your Mental Math Skills? 136

Infrared-Archer asks: "I want to learn how to do most math calculations in my head. That way I won't have to reach for the calculator for problems I should be able to do mentally. Of course there are various websites (beat the calculator) that show many tricks, but I am looking for a comprehensive solution (books, websites) that shows how to solve of wide range of math problems mentally. Any suggestions?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Improving Your Mental Math Skills?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 18, 2004 @07:33AM (#8597174)
    All the tricks are fine, but there is no way around it, you have to practice and keep your skills up. Start adding things up when shopping, calculate tips and sales taxes, etc. When ever you rach for the calculator, see if you can't do it in your head first, at least for a quick estimate.
    • Total agreement. I'd been helping some kids with schoolwork and was amazed that they needed the calc for times tables. I was amazed, but noticed that my own skills were a bit rusty (too much excel and the HP12 was a crutch, so I started doing any and all four function stuff in my head prior to reaching for the calculator. I recalled enough tricks to be close in estimating higher level stuff to ensure that I punched it in correctly. In about six months I've brought my arithmetic back up to a refined leve
    • You got it. Want to meet someone who can do math in their head? Talk to a casino dealer. I dated a girl who was a casino dealer and she could do just about any simple calculation in her head. And when you think about it, thats half what a casino dealer does: calculate payouts.
    • by pla ( 258480 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:47PM (#8602121) Journal
      All the tricks are fine, but there is no way around it, you have to practice and keep your skills up

      True, but the tricks do help quite a lot, in some cases.

      For example, I expect most geeks can add, subtract, and multiply arbitrarily long numbers in their sleep. Division, however, (at least for me) has always proved somewhat tricky when the numbers grow beyond two or three digits.

      My solution? Look up "duplation" on Google. The Egyptians used to use it to multiply numbers, basically in what amounts to a bitwise manner (though understanding binary helps to speed up the process, you can do it with nothing more complicated than "multiply by two" and "greater than").

      However, as I said, doing multiplication doesn't present much of a problem. But you can also do division by using the inverse of duplation! You basically can break an arbitrary largeish division problem into a set of "divide by 2, compare" operations. Basically just long division in binary, but it requires a shorter mental stack (which seems like the key to all the tricks I've seen - ways to reduce the number of items on the brain's stack during the calculation).


      So, I'll agree that nothing can beat plain ol' practice for improving one's math skills. But the tricks can make some operations go from "annoyingly hard" to the almost mindlessly easy "step a, step b, step c, repeat 5 times, get an answer".
  • Best way (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Arngautr ( 745196 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @07:35AM (#8597179)
    The best way is to simply limit your calculator usage. I like to show off with the folks I tutor by doing their calculations in my head before they can type them into calculators. A strong basis in algebra can help you beak apart calculations into managable chunks, the trick is remembering how to put those chuncks back together. For instance (contrived example so not great but...): 95*23=100*25-100*2-5*23=2500-200-115=2185
    • Re:Best way (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jonjohnson ( 568941 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:02AM (#8597499) Homepage
      And, my favorite trick is to multiply any number by 5, divide it by two, move the decimal place over (multiply by 10). It makes it much easer to grok that in my head, at least. So, 5*1024 is the same as 1024/2 * 10 = 512 * 10 = 5120.

      Work backwards for dividing by 5.
      • Re:Best way (Score:5, Funny)

        by rixstep ( 611236 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @10:40AM (#8598223) Homepage
        Yeah, I basically do it the same way, except I usually use logarithms and double precision floating point, then I just round off (ceiling or floor) to the nearest 128-bit integer.

        Takes a bit of practice, but once you get the hang of it, it's a piece of cake.
        • [...] then I just round off (ceiling or floor) to the nearest 128-bit integer.

          I hope you don't forget to round 0.5 to the nearest even integer. Don't want any bias creeping into your mental arithmetic!

      • Re:Best way (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TBone ( 5692 )

        I use this method a bunch, in various forms...distributing wierd values over things.

        What's 19*19?

        Well, it's 20*20, minus 20 (20*19) minus 19 (19*19).

        Which is (20-1)*(20-1), which is (20*20)-19-19+1, or (20*20)-20-19.

        Where did I learn this? I'm not really sure, since it was never actually taught to me, but I think I might have picked it up from Schoolhouse Rock. Go figure.

        • How that works (Score:3, Interesting)

          by rpresser ( 610529 )
          20*20 - 20 = 20*19
          20*19 - 19 = 19*19

    • Re:Best way (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bwalling ( 195998 )
      Sorry, your example makes an extra step:

      95 * 23 = (100 * 23) - (5 * 23) = 2300 - 115 = 2185

      I recognize that this is mildy picky, but the point is to show people how easy it is. What you're really trying to do here is to use numbers that you can do easy math on (5, 10, 50, 100, etc) and then account for the differences. This example works because 95 * 23 is the same as (100 - 5) * 23 is the same as (100 * 23) - (5 * 23), which is an easy mental calculation.

      You don't have to think about this algebraical
      • It's funny: I did this almost exactly opposite.

        To me, 95*23 is 100*23 - 23 5's. 23 5's is 1/2 23*10. 230/2=115. 2300-115 = 2185.

        Why would I want to work with 5 23's when I can work with 23 5's? :)

    • 95*23

      I factor stuff quickly. I'd see that as (19*5)*23, or (19*23)*5. If I hadn't memorized that 19*23=437 (yeah, I memorized the multiplication tables through 200, I'm a geek), then I'd calculate that as (21-2)*(21+2)==21*21-2*2=441-4=437. Tack on the "divide by 2" trick to multiply by five and you get 2185.

  • by twem2 ( 598638 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @07:40AM (#8597189) Journal
    A good way to practice is every time you get a bus or train (or get any sort of ticket with numbers on) add up the digits on it in your head. After doing this for a while you'll get quicker and more accurate.
    For added challenge translate every letter on there into a number using its place in the alphabet (or even its ascii number) and add them on.

    You can then make up your own versions using other arithmetical operators and fractions.

    After your arithmetic is up to scratch other areas of maths will be easier to do in your head (although beyond anything simple it is still best to write it down)
    • I picked up that habit when I was a pizza delivery driver at a store that involved a lot of miles on underused freeways to distant customers. One night, I realized that I was almost halfway into my shift, and wondered what the ratio was of (time worked) / (time left). Solving that using integer number of hours was interesting for about a night or two (I mostly smoked and played my radio loudly on these long drives and didn't spend too much time being intelligent).

      I quickly upped the accuracy to (minutes

  • Vedic Mathematics (Score:5, Informative)

    by manjunaths ( 83313 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @07:43AM (#8597196)
    Try vedic mathematics. There are several books out there, you can try amazon.com. Where I am from (Bangalore, India) we get these books for 1-2 dollars a piece and they come in several volumes. But I saw that they are fairly expensive on amazon.com. If you know someone from India you can ask then to get it for you, it may work out cheaper.


    You could also try a google search I found some interesting websites

    http://www.vedicmaths.com
    http://www1.ics.uci.edu /~rgupta/vedic.html
    http://vedmaths.tripod.com

    Hope this helps.

    • Re:Vedic Mathematics (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 4of12 ( 97621 )

      Land of serious mental mathematicians, not just Ramanujan the theoretician.

      I remember reading, Guiness Book perhaps, of someone in India extracting high roots of many digit numbers.

      Sometimes, even in Europe, mental mathematicians lead interesting and unpredictable lives [lk.net].

    • Re:Vedic Mathematics (Score:3, Informative)

      by Otter ( 3800 )
      Some of the older folks may remember Chisenbop [iupui.edu] or Korean finger math. They used to advertise some instructional program for it all the time during cartoons. One kid in my school learned it but I've never heard anything about it since the 70s. ("Korean" was a lot more exotic then than it is now.)

      My mathematician wife, by the way, pictures numbers as colors and can somehow do back-of-the-envelope calculations that way. I'm not entirely sure that's a sign of a healthy mind, but it seems to work for her.

      • Re:Vedic Mathematics (Score:5, Informative)

        by russellh ( 547685 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @11:35AM (#8598883) Homepage

        My mathematician wife, by the way, pictures numbers as colors and can somehow do back-of-the-envelope calculations that way. I'm not entirely sure that's a sign of a healthy mind, but it seems to work for her.

        I do. Not really numbers, but letters. It has deteriorated over the years for me. Apparently, it is called synesthesia [go.com]

        • synthesthesia for your case? not quite. it's strongly more complex than that. it involves total sensory abnormal function. seeing colors excites smell. sounds produce other sensations. normally, the brain can only interpret receptors input from a hair cell as hearing, or from the recepters in the retina as light (law of specific nerve energies). that is why rubbing your eyes produces spots of light, even though your are only applying pressure to them. people with synesthesia do not follow this law. i don't
    • by rixstep ( 611236 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @10:43AM (#8598259) Homepage
      Heck, thanks matey, that's OK, but most of us will be in your neighbourhood this time next year hunting down IT jobs, so we can pick them up then.

      Thanks again.
    • Re:Vedic Mathematics (Score:5, Interesting)

      by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:22PM (#8601082) Homepage Journal
      No!! Vedic mathematics is a scam.

      The guy who wrote it, Tirthaji, was a fraud. Every word and every claim in the book reg. the history is fabrication. The math is also pure junk and utterly useless.

      Seriously. I did a term paper on it last year. You don't have to take my word, of course: read this article [tifr.res.in] by Prof. S. G. Dani, School of Mathematics, Tata Inst. of Fundamental research (the premier research inst. in India.) There's also a much more detailed version. [tifr.res.in]

      Unfortuntely, the book fits the political ideology of the current Hindu-fascist government in power in India, and so they've been promoting it big time.

      • Re:Vedic Mathematics (Score:2, Interesting)

        by vasubhat ( 733530 )
        No, seriously
        The article seems to be picking issues with the author of the book, rather than Vedic Maths itself. OK, Vedic Maths is a misnomer (not much math is from the Vedas) ... but it is ancient Indian (think outsourcing and not White Bear ;)) knowledge, a lot of which is popular as Vedas.
        Also, the sutras are useful to a large extent. (Though most of the sutras have exceptions, and blah blah)
        To end, yeah, Vedic Mathematics (sic) is a very useful tool in mental maths.
  • by MatrixBandit ( 709610 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @07:47AM (#8597207) Journal
    Awhile ago I realized that since highschool my own math skills had deteriorated beyond belief. The breaking point was when I was going to buy a 21" monitor and I wanted to figure out what the height and width of the screen would be so I could actually get a feel for what it was I was paying $400 for. It took me about 4 hours of racking my brain trying to remember old algerbra rules to transform the pythagorean theorem to use the diagonal (20" viewable) and a generic aspect ratio 1.333 to derive the height / width.

    My point is that if you want to get quicker with your mental math skills or keep your current pace, you have to keep using it or else it will atrophy like everything else. Translation: college math courses or at home math excercises, but either way don't expect to be able to ever be "done" with it.

    Good luck with that by the way, you're a better man than I.
    • 4 hours?!! I find that boggling. But then, I'm a math tutor so my skills are fairly sharp. If I had some idea of what you were doing during those four hours, I'd probably be a better tutor.
      • I can't speak for the parent post, but I can tell you I'm really bad at math. And I had some TERRIBLE experiences with tutors in my day, so I had to struggle with a lot of loathing/hostility before writing this post. Under other circumstances, I would have just passed it by, but you must have caught me in a helpful mood.

        If you're really good at math, I'll guess that you're very bad at drawing/sketching. (That's always been my experience, but I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to that rule, so forgi
        • I'm quite good at math and bad at sketching. I like your example.

          Let me say this about being good at math. Not surprisingly, it's (almost) all about practice. I'm not denying the possibility of natural talent playing a role, but I think probably anybody could reach the calculus level without much need for natural talent, as long as there's no time pressure and you do a lot of work.

          You have to do lots and lots of example problems. As you do, you start to develop a "feel" for them. If you do it enough to de
    • It's a 3/4/5 triangle. So the width is 4/5 of the diagonal (16 inches) and the height is 3/5 of the diagonal (12 inches).

      Cheers!
    • I must have been a mathematician in a previous life.

      I read your comment, boggled appropriately. Thought about the problem for a moment, figured out how to solve it, smiled, moved on. I still don't know what the answer is.

      The odd thing that most people don't really get about math is that, the more math you know, the less you deal with actual numbers, and heaven forbid you should ever do any arithmetic. The best math professors I had all had trouble doing extremely easy multiplication. There's a reason comp
    • Dear god! You had the same dilemma I had!!!

      I recently bought a projector, and was in process of wanting to build a screen for it. I knew the width and height would be 4:3, but I wasn't quite sure how to get the diagonal....

      Then I saw on a web page -- just remember "3,4,5" with 3 being the height, 4 the width, and 5 the diagonal... and with that, you can solve any regular TV size image....

      My problem being, I had a diagonal I wanted to shoot for (since I knew where I wanted the projector) but didn't know
    • Four hours!? Wow. About four seconds on Google led me to a Web page [wondersmith.com] that looks like it would have solved your problem immediately.
  • Just do it! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Captain Kirk ( 148843 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @07:52AM (#8597231) Homepage Journal
    Research proves there is no trick or secret. People who rely on calculators are poor at mental math because of lack of practice. While some people do have innate skills in maths, everyone has the ability to train the brain to to basic math. Take a look at this study
    Memory, mental arithmetic and mathematics
  • by An Onimous Cow Herd ( 8409 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @08:03AM (#8597267)
    I picked this book [amazon.com] up a few years ago second-hand.
    It's a really great book.
    I went from functionally innumerate to someone who can perform tricks with multiplication/division in my head,
    It seems to use some of the vedic tricks mentioned in previous comments, but it's far more simpler to learn and put into practice.
  • Try an abacus. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Grenamier ( 12799 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @08:24AM (#8597327)
    I'm actually looking for one myself. A few weeks ago, I met some young (2nd graders to middle school) students in a mall who were demonstrating their math skills from an abacus class. The thing is, they weren't using abaci in their demo. They were able to do the basic math operations (up to division by three digit numbers) in their heads instantly using abacus principles.

    These days, I have a new baby to worry about (Jaime, a girl, Mar 4, 5 lbs 13 oz) so I haven't had a chance to play with one yet. After meeting those kids, though, I do want to take a look and see if it could help me.
    • Feynman (Score:5, Interesting)

      by xenephon ( 572595 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @10:31AM (#8598118)
      There's an amusing story about Feynman and an abacus salesman in Brazil (found in Surely you're Joking, Mr. Feynman). Feynman was eating in a cafe where he often went, and an abacus salesman came in, trying to sell to the staff. He challenged them to some math problems, and (apparently by chance) they suggested he compete with Feynman instead. They started with an addition problem, and the abacus guy won by quite a bit. They moved on to multiplication, and the abacus won again, but not by very much. Sensing a challenge, the abacus salesman suggests they do cube roots. Quoting now:

      "Cube roots! He wants to do cube roots by arithmetic! It's hard to find a more difficult fundamental problem in arithmetic. It must have been his topnotch exercize in abacus-land.

      "He writes a number on some paper--any old number--and I still remember it: 1729.03. He starts working on it, mumbling and grumbling: "Mmmmmmmmagmmmmbrrr"--he's working like a demon! He's poring away, doing this cube root.

      Meanwhile I'm just sitting there.

      One of the waiters says, "What are you doing?"

      I point to my head. "Thinking!" I say. I write down 12 on the paper. After a little while I've got 12.002.

      The man with the abacus wipes the sweat off his forehead: "Twelve!" he says.

      "Oh, no!" I say. "More digits! More digits!" I know that in taking a cube root by arithmetic, each new digit is even more work than before. It's a hard job."

      Feynman goes on to explain the approximate method he used to get the result, and then gives his analysis:

      "I realized something: he doesn't know numbers. With the abacus, you don't have to memorize a lot of arithmetic combinations; all you have to do is learn how to push the little beads up and down. You don't have to memorize 9 + 7 = 16; you just know that when you add 9 you push a ten's bead up and pull a one's bead down. So we're slower at basic arithmetic, but we know numbers.

      Furthermore, the whole idea of an approximate method was beyond him, even though a cube root often cannot be computed exactly by any method. So I never could teach him how I did cube roots or explain ho lucky I was that he happened to choose 1729.03."

      The rest of that chapter (entitled "Lucky Numbers") talks about his experiences in trying to improve his mental math skills. Definitely worth a read.

    • Re:Try an abacus. (Score:5, Informative)

      by mzs ( 595629 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @10:53AM (#8598365)
      Here is a more complete excerpt [ryerson.ca]. This is how he explained how he was able to approximate the root so quickly:
      The number was 1729.03. I happened to know that a cubic foot contains 1728 cubic inches, so the answer is a tiny bit more than 12. The excess, 1.03 is only one part in nearly 2000, and I had learned in calculus that for small fractions, the cube root's excess is one-third of the number's excess. So all I had to do is find the fraction 1/1728, and multiply by 4 (divide by 3 and multiply by 12). So I was able to pull out a whole lot of digits that way.
  • Visualisation? (Score:4, Informative)

    by jago25_98 ( 566531 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMphonic.pw> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @08:35AM (#8597367) Homepage Journal

    Some links (click the 1's). Some are for dylexics but still relevent for all since pretty much all of us are capable of visual thought...:

    1 [utep.edu] 1 [humboldt.edu] 1 [mathematica.co.kr] 1 [google.com] 1 [sunysb.edu] 1 [artima.com] 1 [suite101.com] 1 [amazon.co.uk] & similar 1 [bda-dyslexia.org.uk] 1 [lboro.ac.uk] 1 [lboro.ac.uk]
  • Practice (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jonjohnson ( 568941 )

    Like everyone else, I say practice makes perfect. I do a lot of UI layout at work, and to conform to interface guidelines, I do a lot of "that control's left plus that control's width plus 14". Little things like that can make all the difference in the world.

    Now, so that I don't get modded as redundant ;) Try this:

    Take 1000 and add 40 to it. Now add another 1000. Now add 30. Add another 1000. Now add 20. Now add another 1000.Now add 10. What is the total?

    Did you get 5000? The correct answer is actual

  • Actually, devices exist that work completely transparently, unlike the old fashioned calculator. Even tux uses one! Here's a pic [hennevl.de] of him modeling one of the later models.
  • by ubiquitin ( 28396 ) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @09:17AM (#8597571) Homepage Journal
    I like estimating tricks.

    The rule of 72 helps to figure out how long it takes for something to double or halve. Divide 72 by the percentage rate of growth or decrease and you'll get the number of time periods in which something will double or halve. For example, let's assume Moore's law says double CPU speeds every 18 months. 72/18=4. So CPU speeds increase by 4% every month. Or another example: your phat mutual fund gets 12% per year, so 72/12=6. So your money will double in 6 years.

    This trick is so simple that even the finance guys always know it. :) Anyone else have logarithm tricks to share?
    • ...you'll get the number of time periods in which something will double or halve.

      That should say that you'll get an approximation of the number of time periods. Your mutual fund example would take about to 5 years 10 months to double and not exactly six years, and obviously something which increases 72% in a single period has not doubled.
      • Just ran some samples using Excel.
        The rule of 72 is closest when the number of periods is 9: rule of 72 gives 8%, actual calc gives 8.006%.

        When the number of periods is 4, the differences is almost a whole percentage point: Rule of 72 = 18%, actual = 18.921%.

        After 9 periods, the rule of 72 starts giving results that are larger than the actual number, but less than a tenth of a percent different:
        10 7.200% 7.177%
        11 6.545% 6.504%
        12 6.000% 5.946%
        13 5.538% 5.477%
        14 5.143% 5.076%
        15
    • Anyone else have logarithm tricks to share?

      No but thanks for the tip on attention-getting fonts with '<tt>'.
    • A simple "trick" that might help regular folks.

      When adding two numbers, say 27 + 36
      Round both numbers to next whole multiple of 10
      so you get 30 + 40 which is obviously 70
      then add the two differences 3 + 4 which is 7
      subtract this from the total 70 - 7
      which is obviously 63 and there you have the answer in a so much easier fashion than adding those two ugly numbers.

      And yes, this is how my mind works.
      • Umm, why don't you round each number down, and then add the differences?

        Here's your method:

        27 + 36 = 30 + 40 - ((30-27) + (40-36)) = 70 - (3+4) = 70 - 7 = 63

        Here's my method (and what we all learned in school):

        27 + 36 = 20 + 30 + (27-20) + (36-30) = 50 + 7 + 6 = 57 + 6 = 63

        Your method involves more subtraction, which is harder for most people. And because it's subtraction, it's more difficult to change the grouping in the later calculations. I.e. with 50 + 7 + 6, you can choose to add the first t
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I like estimating tricks.

      The rule of 72 helps to figure out how long it takes for something to double or halve. Divide 72 by the percentage rate of growth or decrease and you'll get the number of time periods in which something will double or halve. For example, let's assume Moore's law says double CPU speeds every 18 months. 72/18=4. So CPU speeds increase by 4% every month. Or another example: your phat mutual fund gets 12% per year, so 72/12=6. So your money will double in 6 years.

      In actual fa

  • by Anonymous Coward
    You want to improve your mental arithmetic skills not your mental mathematics skills. The distinction is that arithmetic involves applying simple algorithms, memorization, and other techniques to carry out computations. Mathematics involves dealing with purely abstract concepts, moving between different levels of abstraction, working with formalism, and related concepts. At any rate practice helps with both.
  • by GeckoX ( 259575 )
    Stay in school.
  • I hate math. When I was young, any joy on the subject was tourtured out of me by drill sessions at school and an impatient parent who kept jumping ahead of me with the answer.

    That said, "Rapid Math Tricks and Tips: Thirty Days to Number Power" by Edward H. Julius is great. It is a little cheesy, but very practical. It allows you to do much of the same calculations that a 'child prodgy' can even if you're old.

    It does not help with number theory, though it can help give you a much better feel for numbe

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 18, 2004 @10:32AM (#8598129)

    Run a google-search on "trachtenberg math" [google.com].

    You're looking for sites like Trachtenberg Speed System [mathforum.org] or Trachtenberg Math [mdc-berlin.de] (Multiplication [mdc-berlin.de]).

    Professor Jakow Trachtenberg was a brilliant mathematician. Imprisoned by the nazis during WWII, he kept his mind busy to survive by applying advanced mathematical techniques to numeric computation. Eventually developing a number of techniques that provide for rapid mental computation without massive rote memorization.

    For example:

    0 Zero times any number at all is zero.

    1 Copy down the multiplicand unchanged.

    2 Double each digit of the multiplicand.

    3 First step: subtract from 10 and double, and add 5 if the number is odd.
    . Middle steps: subtract from 9 and double, and add half the neighbor, plus 5 if the number is odd.
    . Last step: take half the lefthand digit of the multiplicand and reduce by 2.

    4 First step: subtract from 10, and add 5 if the number is odd.
    . Middle steps: subtract from 9 and add half the neighbor, plus 5 if the number is odd.
    . Last step: take half the lefthand digit of the multiplicand and reduce by 1.

    5 Use half the neighbor, plus 5 if the number is odd.

    6 Use the number plus half the neighbor, plus five if the number is odd.

    7 Use double the number plus half the neighbor, plus five if the number is odd.

    8 First step: subtract from 10 and double.
    . Middle steps: subtract from 9, double, and add the neighbor.
    . Last step: Reduce the lefthand digit of the multiplicand by 2.

    9 First step: subtract from 10.
    . Middle steps: subtract from 9 and add the neighbor.
    . Last step: reduce the lefthand digit of the multiplicand by 1.

    10 Use the neighbor.

    11 Add the neighbor to the number.

    12 Double the number and add the neighbor.
    • Thanks for reminding me of that! I had an elementary-school teacher who taught us those methods. The most impressive are the multiplication by 12, 11, and 9, which are far easier using Trachtenberg than by the usual methods.

      I also recall reading a book about him, and there were some really cool techniques for multiplying by multi-digit numbers that required almost no intermediate calculations to be written down. Unfortunately, one of my teachers marked me down when I used them, as she assumed I had to b
    • Ok. 0,1,2,10,11 and 12 look good. But 3-9 look like a lot more work than simply doing the calculation.
  • by nuffle ( 540687 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @11:02AM (#8598480)
    An excellent way to do truly astounding mathematics is to train your subconscious to work for you. Your subconscious records lots of things and basically remembers them forever. Your conscious mind often has trouble recalling certain memories or details though, but that doesn't mean it's not still there.

    The trick then is to let your subconscious do the math for you, and then find a way to "pull out" the answer (like recalling a distant memory, almost). You can train your subconscious to do math a variety of ways, but one of the most effective is to electrically stimulate nerves (in your hand or arm or thigh, whatever) to count out numbers. So for instance, if you wanted to do 22+34, you'd count out 56 quick electic pulses. Practicing this for a few months, your subconscious will eventually get the idea that when you hear numbers, you want them added. The electric shocks will no longer be necessary, but your subconscious will still internall 'tick' out the answer. It works for multiplication, too, and through various mathematical tricks, you can use it to subtract and divide.

    The only remaining difficulty is training your conscious mind to retrieve the result. This is accomplished via a hypnosis-like state. You can get good at it so that it only takes you a half-second to pull out the resulting number. No eyes rolling back or chanting or anything like that.

    Heh, ok, not really.
  • Math Tricks (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mbrinkm ( 699240 )
    First, there is no substitute for exposure to a great math teacher. I had the fortune to have had a couple great math teachers through elementary and high school that led me to major in math in college.

    Second, knowing a few tricks isn't enough. Understanding the tricks and why they work is the key to improving your math skills. Beyond access to a teacher to help you with this, you may want to try some resources available on the web like MIT's OpenCourseWare [mit.edu]. They have a lot of information available on
    • Finally, go to your local high school and find out what text they use in their first year algebra classes.

      Dear lord, don't do this. Go get yourself a copy of Euclid's Elements [amazon.com] instead. Or take a look at the java-enhanced version [clarku.edu] online.

      The Elements is a brilliantly organized treatment of the science of geometry as a whole. While reading it, ask yourself what the subject of each book is (there are 13 books). Ask why they're in the order they're in. Ask why the propositions within each book are done i

  • It comes down to practice, and the only way you will practice is when you have to do it. So get a job where you have to do this.

    When I worked carpendry I got really got a multipling by 1.42 (guess why[1]) because that is something we had to do often, and calculators didn't last more than a week on the job so we rarely had one. (The foreman would buy one if he knew a lot of calculations were coming up, but he often had to do math by hand) In that job there there is plany of surface to work with so we wr

  • When I was in high school, the graphic arts teacher----

    ...what? The industrial arts at my high school were also half of a semester of math.

    Anyway, what he would do is get various slides with various simple multiplication problems of the form xx * x, and show them for all of 1.5 seconds each before skipping the next one. (The x * x form was something learned early on.) The object was to be able to know the answer to said problem immediately on sight. EG, you see 12 * 5, and 60 theoretically registers

  • I'm not talking about memorizing a formula. I'm talking about figuring out your own formula. Sure, you'll likely end up reinventing the wheel, but is your goal the mental challenge, or to compete professionally? It's like that old Rubik's Cube -- you could read the book and memorize the answer, but was that fun?

    Similar story - once, after a trip to a casino, I got it into my head that red/black roulette betting could be won all the time using the simple strategy of "Always bet the same color, and when y

    • I got it into my head that red/black roulette betting could be won all the time using the simple strategy of "Always bet the same color, and when you lose, double your bet."

      Not true. Consider:

      Start with $1500
      Bet $100 on red, result is black, loss = $100
      Bet $200 on red, result is black, loss = $300
      Bet $400 on red, result is black, loss = $700
      Bet $800 on red, result is black, loss = $1500
      Player is broke, and cannot bet again

      Keep in mind that probability states that red and black have equal probabilities

    • It works better on craps, as the odds are tighter, in roulette, the green squares are both losers giving you about about a 47% chance of winning. The pass (or nopass, but you get dirty looks from the shooter) line is north of 49% (a bit better if you take odds). The issue is that in strings of random numbers long sequences of the same result are more common than conventional wisdom would have us believe and you only get about 9 losses before most table limits kick in (do the math on the doublings between
    • The green numbers fuck this strategy up.

      P(red) = 18/38 = .47 P(black) = 18/38 = .47

      Eventually, you're going to lose either way.

  • by ec_hack ( 247907 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @11:59AM (#8599169)
    Long ago in high school, I competed in what was then called "Number Sense" - doing math problems mentally, no aid of scratch paper. (Calculators were an expensive novelty - 4 functions, Nixie tube displays, plugged into the wall, had 4 functions.) The system we all worked from is now called the "Trachtenberg Speed System of Basic Mathematics", and it had lots of tricks for converting decimals to fractions and vice versa, multiplication of pairs of 4 digit numbers, etc. There are a lot of drills on visualization that helps in holding intermdiate results in the head. See http://www.speed-math.com or find the book on Amazon.
  • Visualize (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DaoudaW ( 533025 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:06PM (#8599256)
    When I was a kid I found this already old book called (?) "The Art of Ciphering". That's a guess since I haven't seen the book in probably 35 years. But I remember some of the techniques in it. I was a farm kid at the time so while doing field work I'd have long blocks of time (as much as 10-12 hours a day) without much to occupy my mind. So I filled the time doing math in my head. I got pretty good at multiplying 4-digit x 4-digit, 5-digit x 5-digit, etc. in my head. Also extracting square roots, doing Roman fractions, and other stuff.

    As I did these arithmetic problems, I found that my mind developed a kind of blackboard. I could visualize the problem and effectively "write" the answer without worrying about keeping track of everything as separate digits.

    My advice: Find a good algorithm, practice a lot (yep, hours and hours), draw a picture in your mind.

    The bonus of doing this is that later when I started studying math, the visualization I'd developed helped lots in advanced courses. I could "see" solutions almost instantly that would take others awhile to derive and even then they wouldn't really understand the relationships which led to the solution.
    • I agree; I think the brain is not a calculator, but a pattern recognizer.

      Give it enough patterns and the answer pops out. Multiplication tables are one pattern, and fraction tables (1/2 = 0.5, 1/3 is approx. .33, 1/4=0.25 ... 1/9 is approx 0.11, 1/10=0.1) are another, logs, square roots, trig, etc.

      Memorize the first dozen or so entries of each table that correspond to whole numbers (or whatever logical pattern you can discern) and pretty soon your brain will use the patterns to organize the answer for yo
  • was Calculator's Cunning by Karl Menninger.

    I believe it's out of print now, but was an excellent text, covering all of the tricks.

    If you search bestwebbuys [bestwebbuys.com] you can see that it is for sale used.

  • in a school far far away I used to mentally multiply two 5-digit numbers during certain boring lessons. (Religion, anyone ?)

    No tricks involved. I did it just like you would do it on paper.

    A benefit seems to be that I'm able to remember phone/pin/account numbers and random passwords easily. And I avoided being brainwashed...
  • Math as an adult (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SolemnDragon ( 593956 ) * <solemndragon.gmail@com> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @12:53PM (#8599840) Homepage Journal
    This is possibly going to sound off-topic, at first, but i promise i'll try to bring it round again. The very best science teacher i ever met was one who would not grade tests on a hundred point scale. He did them on a 10/10 per-question scale- if you got everything right on a six-question test, you got a 60 and that was a perfect score. This becomes relevant because of what those ten points would be for. In real life, most mathematical questions are not merely hit-or-miss. There's the math- but you also have to know the other factors.

    For example, if you knew what you were looking for, such as calories or joules or centimetres, that's one part of it. If you know the formula relevant to the situation, that's another. Then you get to basic arithmetic skills- it doesn't do you any good to know the formula if you can't add or multiply the numbers.

    My favourite way to tutor math- and how i learned it as an adult (i never took the SATs and was fortunate to have a tutor who could teach me high school math even though i'm 27) - is to use basic math issues that everyone sees, every day. Like the label on food. If this equals x% of your USRDA, how much is the USRDA? Putting the problems in everyday life situations may make you more comfortable with the math,a nd it will definitely leave you with an idea of the numbers involved.

    'An idea of the numbers...' by which i mean a feel for the numbers, and what they stand for. A lot of people have trouble connecting the numbers to reality- and if you can understand in a concrete way the relationship between the distance around a pipe and the distance across it, the math may stick better for real world use later on.

    The other trick? Estimate where you can, and use the information that's easily accessible to you..

    For example: What's 5% of the time in a week?

    well, you know that there's 24 hours per day. Add the big numbers first- 20 times seven, that's 140, right? plus four times seven- 28. Right off the bat, you're up to 168 hours in a week. Ten percent of a number is easy, ten percent of this number is 16.8. Half of that will give you the five percent that you're looking for- 8.4. You've just figured out that 8.4 hours is 5% of a week. Convert that .4 into minutes- forty percent of an hour is a little less than half. (sixty minutes, times ten percent, is six minutes. That's ten percent. Four times six is twenty four minutes. That's forty percent.) The answer? Eight hours, 24 minutes.

    I use this with others because it teaches people how to think about numbers, that they are reachable things, not just the provenance of mathemagicians. The biggest barrier to doing math is the belief that math is too difficult. (i also play for people Tom Lehrer's wonderful song, New Math, and assure them that we're going to ignore base 8.)

    Good luck with it, and try to use it in the real world where you can get a feel for what the numbers attach to. Figure out what you know and what you need to know, and just practice. There will always be more math to attempt; there will always be stuff that's intimidating. The only way to learn it is to do it, a piece at a time from the information that you can grasp easiest.

    Oh, and in high school, in that science class? i got a C. Worked hard for it, i've never been prouder of a grade then or since. And i've never forgotten the real stuff i learned there- that being able to describe what you're reaching for is as important as the math skills to get you that answer.

  • EXERCISE!! An activity like jogging promotes the release of neurotrophins and dendritic branching. Healthy neurons equal healthy mental operation.
  • Life imitates art (Score:2, Interesting)

    by StrongAxe ( 713301 )
    Isaac Asimov wrote a story called 'A Feeling of Power' (also reprinted as 'A Long Forgotten Technique') that takes place in an advanced society in which all calculations are performed by machines. One day, a bored technician figures out how to add without a calculator. He theorizes that long ago, man must have had to perform calculations without machines, so he goes about trying to re-invent other machine-free calculating techniques. The ability to compute without relying on machines gives him a great fe
  • A pleasant exercise is the Doomsday algorithm (invented I think by John Conway) and described on rudy.ca/doomsday.html whereby you can calculate in your head the day of the week of any given calendar date in the last century. (It takes a minute or so, faster if you have been practicing).
  • What's the point? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I am a programmer and my metal arithmatic skills have lowered to the level that I will not sum more than two simple two digit numbers or multiply more than two simple single digit numbers in my head. Why? The reason is I don't need to. My ability to do these things has reduced over time because I do not need to use these skills. I know people emphasise mathematics to be a good programmer, but I just don't need mental arithmatic for it. Sometimes I need algebra, but this rarely involves large numbers and is
    • I agree with you. As an upandcoming programmer, I have noticed little use for knowing how to solve equations. I thought when I first got started messing about with computers that it was very math intense, I have found the opposite to be true. Yet everyone still insists that to have naything to do with computers you need a strong math foundation. This is a myth. The fact is, that if doing complex calculations in a subroutine are your math skills really good enough to do in your head? Or rather are you going
    • Ok, you don't need to know the trick (see above) for squaring any number, because you can use the calculator to square any number.

      What if you need to program the computer to square numbers that are larger than the word size can contain? (i.e. arbitrary precision arithmetic)

      If you know the math tricks, you can do this easily. If you don't, you have to struggle to do it analytically, which is a pain.

      Quick, how can you figure out the lowest set bit of a number?

  • by sisco ( 763303 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:08PM (#8600913)
    I have been a math tutor for 3 years. I also have a BS in Math (for whatever that is worth).

    But there is one thing that I *always* tell my students. That is this: There are many, many, MANY ways of going about doing a math problem. Sometimes the way the book describes it, or the way the prof tells you to do it doesn't make as much sense to you. For instance, some people understand fractions better than decimals, or vice versa. As a statistician (or future statistician at the time) I would always convert fractions to decimal before I worked with them because it made more sense to me. (I just had to remember to convert them back when i was done)

    Point being...there are many correct ways to come to a correct answer. When we learned to multiply and do long division in elementry school we were taught an algorithm for doing so. However, as some people have already posted their 'tricks', there are other algorithms out there. You just have to make sure it actually yields a correct answer before you utilize it. (If you don't want to formally prove it, like me, then you can try it on at least 3 different sets of varied number sets. Don't pick simple numbers, they can often lead you to a wrong conclusion)

    Find what works best for you. (as long as its correct!) I'm a big fan of rounding numbers, calculating them and then adjusting them from there. e.g. 17 x 4 is almost 20 x 4 = 80, but we left out 3 of the 4's so the answer is 80-12 = 68. (IMHO the algorithm we learned in elementary school for multiplying is the worst way of trying to calculate something in one's head!!!)

    A good trick I use when calculating discounts in stores (i.e. 70% off, 25% off etc.) is to figure out how much 10% of the price is. This is easy, just shift the decimal point. Then if its 70% off, I'll take the 10% off price and multiply by 3. Unless it is easier to calculate it the other way around. If it is 25% off, I'll divide the price by 4 and then subtract that.

    Anyhow, I haven't really given any specifics or good examples, but explore thinking about the problems in slightly different manners and then making small adjustments to the final answer. Do what makes sense to you.

  • Listen to this CD every day and your skills will VASTLY improve:

    Buy the Numbers CD [hemi-sync.com]
  • Memory improvement (Score:3, Informative)

    by Vexware ( 720793 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:03PM (#8601618) Homepage

    One activity you can indulge in can simultanesouly improve your memory, make you feel good and allow you to show off in front of your friends so they will think that you are a really intelligent person (which I am not saying you aren't, but people who aren't really into this kind of brainy and "geeky" activity will surely be very impressed) is to memorize 1000 digits of pi [ernet.in]. It's funner than you may think, as it's a real challenge and over time will increase your capacity to use the full potential of your memory properly.

  • Just go to any bookstore that has a math section. Every single one I've been to always has a book or two about doing mental math that is very comprehensive. And, these books are almost always really cheap, because no one else wants to buy them. :)
  • Here's 2 tricks when you need to know if a divisor evenly divides into the numerator. (e.g. is N mod D ?= 0)

    To tell if a number is divisible by 3:
    - sum up the digits
    - if the sum divides by 3 with no remainder, the orginal number is divisible by 3 with no remainder.
    The proof is pretty trivial to work out. It only takes a few lines to prove it.

    Another trick, that isn't well know, and that I can't take credit for is
    A number is divisible by 7 if
    - take the last digit off a number and double it
    - subtract the
  • Two books I have... (Score:3, Informative)

    by JGski ( 537049 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @04:02PM (#8602332) Journal
    Two books I have related to doing math in your head:

    "Consider a Spherical Cow" [amazon.com] and there's a 2nd book "Consider a Cylindrical Cow" :-) - which is about how to do "back-of-the-envelope" estimates. How many pairs of shoes can be made from a single cow? Consider a spherical cow. :-)

    And a Dover reprint: "How to Calculate Quickly" [amazon.com] which has many of the tricks and rules of thumb people used to all know before calculators.

    From my "antiquarian" collection I have a number of "arithmetic" textbooks (all pre-1930) that have lots of little rules of thumb for checking sums and products - many are familiar to accountants. Also great chapters like "Arithmetic of Thrift", "Arithmetic of Agriculture", etc. with problems like "...girls in a class in millinery need 20 yd. of ribbon..."

  • Here's 2 tricks that I accidently discovered, being forced to constantly convert between the two.

    To convert a number, K from kmph to M mph
    M = (K / 2) + (K / 10)
    i.e.
    90 kmp = 45 + 9 = 54 ... real answer is 55.92
    The relative error is 3.4%, which isn't too bad.

    I usually drop the fractions, so the formula becomes
    M = int(K / 2) + int(K / 10)
    Even though the relative error will be a tad higher at low speeds, and oscillate around 3 to 6% for the most part, the absolute error is at most off by 3 mph for speeds less
  • or... you could do what i do! augment your brain with new hardware, rather than learning a few new tricks. i use a pda, an extension of my brain that is almost always with me in my pocket. i have many good software packages for doing maths. a lot better than carrying around a ti-xx with you all the time for various reasons.

    god bless the public school calculator generation!
  • Math Magic [amazon.com] by Scott Flansburg. I've seen the guy demo his skills on TV and he's amazing.

    and don't forget the Doomsday Algorithm [rudy.ca] which is actually useful on an almost daily basis.

  • If I attempt to perform a calculation in my head, I can often see the tricks to make it doable, but can't hold on to more than a couple of intermediate values. Particularly if I'm trying to keep track of mantissas and exponents at the same time. I usually need some random access storage (pen and paper) to hold the temporary variables.
  • Part of what I had to learn in primary was my times tables; we'd have to memorize everything from 1*1 up to 12*12 (and all the numbers in between). It was very boring and I hated it at the time, but I'm glad of it now, as I can multiply pretty well in my head.
  • Most people's primary learning style is either visual, auditory or kinsthetic. To figure out which one yours is, consider how you think of things and how you like to organize information. If you learn best from looking at charts and graphs, you're likely either visual or kinsthetic (a lot of kinsthetic learners pick up very quickly how to 'translate' information from other states, else they get labled as 'learning disabled'), if you learn best from reading words, you're either auditory or visual (or a very

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...