Daniel Junior

+

1

0

1

0

1

0

I saw it before, pretty amazing method.

Start a hangout

If you're thinking WTH? you're not alone

1300

579

221 comments

Daniel Junior

+

1

0

1

0

1

0

I saw it before, pretty amazing method.

genius

i'm with you :D

Don't know if it's Chinese or Japanese but it's definitely interesting and may be ancient way of multiplying big numbers quickly.

Valentino Stoll

+

7

8

7

8

7

I think you mean the "Vedic" way. Vedic mathematics is fantastic

CJ Griesmeyer

+

5

6

5

6

5

This has been all over G+ the last few days. Honestly it's pretty similar to the way we're taught to do it by multiplying columns seperately and adding.

Rodney Marquez

+

2

3

4

3

4

3

I prefer my calculator...

Matt Burns

+

2

5

6

5

6

5

I agree with some of the comments on the article. This is in no way faster than the traditional method of multiplying one number by each digit of the other. This method becomes increasingly more complex, lengthy, and prone to errors as you use more digits or individually larger digits.

Something as simple as 99 x 11 would require me to draw 20 lines and count all of the intersections, while doing it in my head I just think "Ok, that's 990 plus 99, remember to carry the one, so... 1089".

Or what about 1111111 x 22? That involves drawing 9 lines and counting 8 groups of intersections, OR mentally overlapping 22222220 and 2222222 to equal 2444442. I don't even need scratch paper.

It looks neat, but I would never teach a child to multiply using this method.

Something as simple as 99 x 11 would require me to draw 20 lines and count all of the intersections, while doing it in my head I just think "Ok, that's 990 plus 99, remember to carry the one, so... 1089".

Or what about 1111111 x 22? That involves drawing 9 lines and counting 8 groups of intersections, OR mentally overlapping 22222220 and 2222222 to equal 2444442. I don't even need scratch paper.

It looks neat, but I would never teach a child to multiply using this method.

Mike Johnson

+

3

4

3

4

3

Interesting how that works out, but I'm not sure I'd call that a **quick** way to multiply.

M Ku

+

1

2

1

2

1

I had thought the method is common in the world.

I think almost Japanese are so.

How about other countries?

Please tell me how you have be taught.

I think almost Japanese are so.

How about other countries?

Please tell me how you have be taught.

Asian ftw

Armando Garza

+

1

2

1

2

1

Way too messy. Better stick to multiplying the traditional way. Or you'll get lazy and get stuck

Mind=blown

Justin Eakins

+

2

3

2

3

2

I can do 4 digits X 4 digits, but when you get one with a 0 in it - it messes everything up.

Dan Abarbanel

+

1

2

1

2

1

I learned that in school and hated it because its faster to do it in my head.

Notice they use small numbers, multiply 968 by 798 and it will give you a headache.

Edward Cochran

+

1

2

1

2

1

+Matt Burns Remember that they still use abacuses over there, and the kids can swing through math faster than most anyone of their age group in America.

Eventually kids learn to "see" the math (the creative side), just like your examples, but this method allows for some creativity in math instead of being cold calculators while in the process of learning.

BTW, why would you count out every single intersection when you can break the intersection problem down just like the way we learned long multiplication in school (multiplying individual problems within the total problem)? Put it down to paper, it's pretty natural once you get past the relatively easy learning curve of locating the positions that need to be added up, and seems to be especially useful in situations where the numbers are more complicated than multiplying by numbers with similar digits.

Eventually kids learn to "see" the math (the creative side), just like your examples, but this method allows for some creativity in math instead of being cold calculators while in the process of learning.

BTW, why would you count out every single intersection when you can break the intersection problem down just like the way we learned long multiplication in school (multiplying individual problems within the total problem)? Put it down to paper, it's pretty natural once you get past the relatively easy learning curve of locating the positions that need to be added up, and seems to be especially useful in situations where the numbers are more complicated than multiplying by numbers with similar digits.

Piper Kilb

+

1

2

1

2

1

you are crazy hehehe hahaha

oh and i know math.

I can do that math 4 times before he completes it...

thats retarded, I did it in my head faster then he drew lines.

It is not Japanese way. It is ancient Indian way of calculation and it is mentioned in Vedas. Please be truthful to its source..! Cheers...

mind blown for the day plus one

Bryan Goodrich

+

2

3

2

3

2

I agree with Matt and Darrell's examples. This is a creative way to visualize a process, but what I feel should be taught is the distributive property on integer arithmetic that is at work here. It is at the heart of why the decimal system works so well. One could teach that the corners are really the 100's (left), 10's (middle), and 1's (right) places and that we're simplifying as such the multiplication of (20+1) and (10+3).

Raul Flores

+

1

2

1

2

1

+Priyank G Thakkar It's not the Indian way, I've been doing this shit fo years :)

Muy interesante

Translate

es tres bien

Translate

that's not quick. looks cumbersome and tedious. Imagine multiplying 978 x 698 = pain in the arse

Slow!

michael Wiggs

+

3

4

3

4

3

this teaches no mathmatical skills. it is only useful in answering questions on a test.

Ty Brown

+

1

2

1

2

1

I don't think it's meant to be the fastest but as a way to illustrate the principles involved....in the U.S. we often teach math as nothing but algorithms. This allows us to look at it in a new way. It does not mean you should replace your calculator with pickup sticks.

It isn't as fats so you should chech this out because it is interesting but they do have their facts wong -- lol pun intended

fast*

Nathan Wei

+

1

2

1

2

1

that is exceedingly japanese

Big numbers are not a problem, but big digits show the limitations of this (useless) method. Try 87*96...

waw.....................

I saw this posted the other day. Pretty strange, but it works. I don't think it's any faster than our method though.

wow thats cool! gonna try that sometimes:P

Subhash

i really try

Doesn't matter coz this tec is more than 10000 years old.

:)

:)

Ty Brown

+

2

3

2

3

2

99 X 99 is easy. You get an 81 a 162 and an 81. Take the 8 from the last number and add it to the 162 = 170. Then take the 17 from that 170 and add it to the first 81. That gives you a 98 a 0 and a 1 or 9801.

Ty Brown

+

4

5

4

5

4

It's not fast but it's an interesting way to visualize.

this is too hard ya

students in the US get to use calculators instead of lines. :)

Wow

I know right? Wow!!!

its so fun its like sudoku only useful. :P

m

يا شيخ رضوان الله يسهلها عليك ان شاء الله مافي شي صعب

Translate

so cool!!

Alexey C.

+

1

2

1

2

1

multiply 99 by 99 in this way...

Takumi Shimoda

+

3

4

3

4

3

the easiest way is to punch in numbers in a calculator

I thought that was the US way :P

I thought that was the US way :P

US way is to outsource it to chinese with calculator

This is pretty interesting to see but I still think the old fashioned way is better.

Can this be done for numbers with different number if digits , like multiplying 2 digit with 3?

omg..thats sooooo wrong.

This is good because you write it out, ab x cd and apply FOIL, like in algebra.

Holy poop

The same topic made it on "What's Hot" a while ago:

https://plus.google.com/113381483153888636532/posts/6cUeRdx1vAL

https://plus.google.com/113381483153888636532/posts/6cUeRdx1vAL

I heard about this... want to try it with my little guy.

+Graham Cale did you see this?

"Quickly" should be in quotes.

David Rogers

+

1

2

1

2

1

does not appear any faster at all!!

Jajaja crazy

its very nice.

I hadn't seen this video, but I have seen this technique before +Jodie Wilson.

Zac Arratay

+

1

2

1

2

1

Mother of God...

Yaa its Vedic Maths.

a very effective method for those who're very bad at calculations, but for those who're good at it...

try this

759*687= ??

and you'll end up counting lines till your last breath...

:-)

try this

759*687= ??

and you'll end up counting lines till your last breath...

:-)

really cool

Horoscope

A calculator is much faster.

I can do that!

123 x 321 = 39483

:P

:P

App?

That's all nice and dandy (and, believe me, I tried, and I totally understand how this works), but it's not fast at all, let alone faster than doing this "European" or "American" way (those are also different, btw).

STILL ASIAN

99 x 99 takes FOREVER to do...

Just like knowing another language.. No comperison and it is fun...

Dvid Lewis

+

1

2

1

2

1

It's pretty stupid and time consuming. Really to much to deal with. I guess it would help to understand how multiplication works for beginners but other than that I consider it useless

Holy hell

How the

How the

.... Or just whip out the good old TI-84 and do the math. AMERICA

Hari Lubovac

+

1

2

1

2

1

It took me 15 seconds the way I learned that in school. I went through a number of these the "Japanese" way, and it's slower: as digits are higher, number of lines increase, and counting intersections turns into multiplications, then splitting multi-digit numbers and summing outer digits with neighbor groups becomes messier - all in all, slow, extremely.

Nice

Nice, jack schatten!!!!!

Aseem Tiwari

+

1

2

1

2

1

I feel that the best way to solve any mathematics problem is described in "Vedic Maths" book written by the great mathmatician of all times "Aryabhatta". Have a look at this book and i bet u vl not need calculator for most of the complex problems

nice

Show me how it is?

Strange but it works and is fast

Seamus de Lange

+

1

2

1

2

1

I am sure that there is more than meets the eye here. I believe they may be trying to stimulate and activate areas of creativity in an otherwise uninteresting task and possibly developing areas that include lateral thinking and the like. I am not not certain and closer inspection would be required but the process seems key here, to me anyway.

Amazing!

Paul Robertson

+

2

3

2

3

2

Pretty neat.

I don't understand. Technically no different than how I was taught.

Biography

Ryan Whitley

+

1

2

1

2

1

Neat for simple concepts but as mentioned in the earlier comments, it would fall apart for larger digits.

Colin kaepernick/biography

Hari Lubovac

+

2

3

2

3

2

Oh, it works perfectly for numbers of any size, but it get extremely complex and slow. It doesn't compete with our way, timewise, at all. Remember, the title of the post says "quickly multiply numbers", and once you start working with 4-digit numbers, there's time to solve it the way we know, get coffee, and drink it, before that Japanese finishes counting intersections.

Tried Vedic math :-)

Dats awesome

nice

Mandi Lavoie

+

1

2

1

2

1

note how the last half of the video sections everything into vertical quadrants/columns and there's a shifting over when there's double digits. I wonder if there's a page somewhere with all the rules of how this works. It's so interesting, especially to see how other minds think around the world.

indian methoed is better..................

Nice

Where was this method when I was taking stat & calculus?!!? It may have helped. Lol.

Laura D

+

2

3

2

3

2

ancient Chinese secret LOL

I'm pretty bad when it comes to number.

Esta bien, pero si hay que multiplicar números grandes ...

Translate

worst case 999x999 !!!

Genius

I wonder how many times I'll have to watch this before I get it. =D

I AM NOT SPAM!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm hiring please email or message for full details

Excellence

Cool, but put a 9 somewhere and you'll need an A3 sheet or lose your eyes :)

I also prefer eating with a fork, but its nice to know that it can be done with sticks.:)

Parag Patil

+

1

2

1

2

1

Awsome

Arun Shroff

+

2

3

2

3

2

I think one has to know where to draw the line with this technique -:)

Cool

bingo

Good

very good method, the video seen ~ 2 weeks ago, on russian social network

This is brilliant. They wonder why we lack science & maths skills with kids and adults this country (UK).

Artistic arythmetic.

It's easy on small, a job on large numbers.

It's easy on small, a job on large numbers.

Good little method

Japanese way? It's Vedic mathematics - known to Indians for the last 8000 years...:)))

Brilliant!

Ati ki?

Tell me more!

wow i tired it and i was fast :) hihihihi 35 x 15, lots of line hihihihi

yes it works........

its really amazing

That's so cool!

Please i am broke

Did this remind anyone of binomial multiplication in algebra?

In actuality, all you have done is taken each place in the multiplicand (the number to multiply) times each place in the multiplier. After all, intersections in lines are just multiplication. 5 lines crossing 1 line: 1 intersection. 5 lines crossing 0 lines: 0 intersections. Not hard to understand there.

Imagine two numbers multiplied by their method. Now imagine lines straight up and down at each group of intersections. These are your places (such as ones, tens, hundreds, etc.) All you have done is put the result of the multiplication of each digit in its proper place, or power of ten. This happens naturally because of the diagonal slant of the lines. Under traditional multiplication, we must add placeholder zeroes for the placement of the multiplied numbers to be right.

This is the way I visualize it: take two numbers, say a 3 and a 2 digit number. Multiply them under both systems. Now, under the traditional system, don't add together the multiplied numbers just yet. Take the shape of those numbers (disregarding placeholder zeroes) and rotate it clockwise 45 degrees. It should be the same shape as in this method.

The main disadvantage of this method is the absence of negative numbers. It does, however, give a new way to see this function in math.

I am not at all proficient in binary math, but this method, at least in my head, seems like it should work under any number system. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, I haven't worked much in any other number systems.

In actuality, all you have done is taken each place in the multiplicand (the number to multiply) times each place in the multiplier. After all, intersections in lines are just multiplication. 5 lines crossing 1 line: 1 intersection. 5 lines crossing 0 lines: 0 intersections. Not hard to understand there.

Imagine two numbers multiplied by their method. Now imagine lines straight up and down at each group of intersections. These are your places (such as ones, tens, hundreds, etc.) All you have done is put the result of the multiplication of each digit in its proper place, or power of ten. This happens naturally because of the diagonal slant of the lines. Under traditional multiplication, we must add placeholder zeroes for the placement of the multiplied numbers to be right.

This is the way I visualize it: take two numbers, say a 3 and a 2 digit number. Multiply them under both systems. Now, under the traditional system, don't add together the multiplied numbers just yet. Take the shape of those numbers (disregarding placeholder zeroes) and rotate it clockwise 45 degrees. It should be the same shape as in this method.

The main disadvantage of this method is the absence of negative numbers. It does, however, give a new way to see this function in math.

I am not at all proficient in binary math, but this method, at least in my head, seems like it should work under any number system. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, I haven't worked much in any other number systems.

well this is cool:) em playing it now, with friend here and its fun rather doing the traditional way :) thanks JAPAN, arigatu gusaimasu

Now I feel smart, because I've been doing this for a long time in school.....

In school I never could get it right by doing multiplication "the right way." I learned of the lattice method which is similar to this stuff, and have used it since. Whatever works.

I know it all..

This is called Mega Math in our college class... Even how many digits we can solve it 9999999*9999999 is just very easy... I can solve it without any lines or the traditional way...

This is called Mega Math in our college class... Even how many digits we can solve it 9999999*9999999 is just very easy... I can solve it without any lines or the traditional way...

ulta * pulta =sultta

Thanks for sharing! !

Its good, but gets bad with higher numbers

Oooooo

Yep

Psivid

Utter tosh.

this hacker ?

surya! what you mean by hacker. do you hack or have an idea on how to hack.

Actuly, not an accurate method

Joe N.

+

1

2

1

2

1

Hell tu da fucc nah.....who da hell had da tym in da day tu cum up wit dat system

ashish T

+

1

2

1

2

1

Like crossing lines dots.......

Eg.8394*5342

(8*5+3*5+9*5+4*5...............)

=40+15+45+20

+24+09+27+12

+32+12+36+16

+16+06+18+08

*__________________________*

= 40+39+86+75+54+34+08........( add decimal digit to next number from left)

=44840748

Eg.8394*5342

(8*5+3*5+9*5+4*5...............)

=40+15+45+20

+24+09+27+12

+32+12+36+16

+16+06+18+08

= 40+39+86+75+54+34+08........( add decimal digit to next number from left)

=44840748

Ali A. Othman

+

2

3

2

3

2

It will be a mess when it comes to multiply 789*987

number 9 means more line, try 987 multiplied by 789 you'll see :)

my schools network forbids this page

i saw it.

This is so old i was doing that in grade school now I'm about to be 25 the us was is better a number on top of a number go usa

It works, I'm not sure how quick it is comparatively. A lot of adding going on, especially when you get to larger (3 to 4 digit) numbers.

Jason's right. To multiply 987 by789, you'll wind up with 9 "regions" on the page, with counts ranging from 63 to 81 intersections per region. By the time you finish counting up all those intersections, you could have done 20 problems the conventional way, and finished your English and History homework too.

Nice. Although by the time I make all those lines, I COULD prolly have done the multiplication myself.

He

slow,

but good for the sake of knowledge...(only)

gotta do similar multiplications as normal mathod for calculating no. of intersections.

but good for the sake of knowledge...(only)

gotta do similar multiplications as normal mathod for calculating no. of intersections.

yes,it works.....

Compared it with the traditional method on multiplying 431*653. Traditional took 42 secs, "asian" took 1 min 12 secs. The traditional is way easier because you have to operate with just basic multiplication table (1 to 9) and some really simple addition in the end. "Asian" way requires you to operate the same multiplication table, but also to add piles of 2-digit numbers. Looks really simple for numbers with digits between 1..4, but when there are 5+, things get really complex.

slow,

but good for the sake of knowledge...(only)

gotta do similar multiplications as normal mathod for calculating no. of intersections.

but good for the sake of knowledge...(only)

gotta do similar multiplications as normal mathod for calculating no. of intersections.

This reminds me of lattice multiplication. And while this might be a cool way to do math, for me it looks and feels slow and messy. Love the trick though.

Ghevin Lanit

+

2

3

2

3

2

dahhh, whatever., as long as it comes up with the right answer., thats done it.

Probably the easiest way for me to do multiplication. Varieties is my thing though:-)

Michael Gong

+

1

2

1

2

1

slower than my mind calculation....

Its a lot faster counting in my head....

Wer d hell iz my calc?

Translate

@?!,-,.«¢®«®©

long fish!

Aq

Amazing

But it wouldn't be the smartest way to do 999x999..

silly

Jeff Willard

+

1

2

1

2

1

That's just long multiplication done with lines instead of numbers. It's absolutely no different than doing it with numbers. Like doing sudoku with A-I instead of 1-9 because people are 'afraid of numbers'.

Interesting!

Wow, awesome!

wow ~genius indid o_O

I would have loved to have learnt this in school, having dyslexia I had a lot of problems with math, and still do, I just tried it out and it's a lot easier then the North American way. I believe this method should be taught to students having issues with math.

It really works!!!!

draw 1 line and write the number under that line...that all....

Can we please have staggered versions of the Internet so those of us who were around last year don't have to see all of the same posts again?

What was wrong with memorizing the multiplication tables?

Eric Fine

+

1

2

1

2

1

This is the same way we were taught, only they take time to draw lines instead of using off setting addition. This is way to slow for huge numbers.

Doesn't even have to be that larger numbers before it becomes unwieldy. 52 x 57 isn't that hard but using this method takes ages.

I still think the invisible abacus method is amazing.

Cool. This method allows teachers to teach kids multiplication at much earlier ages, e.g., kindergarten in Korea and Japan.

Eric Fine

+

1

2

1

2

1

if you teach multiplication to little kids the way a CPU handles multiplication. (blocking the larger number into groups by the smaller number e.g. 3 groups of 9 blocks gives you 27 blocks). i was able to learn multiplication when i was only 3 years old, although only up to 9X9.

It's a way to learn, not a replacement for traditional techniques. Japanese children learn this way at first and move on to using calculators like everyone else :D

+David Robertson

Computers too. In fact, let's take technology all the way back before the abacus. Nobody should ever need to reproduce the problem physically, or rely on another system to do it for them, quickly. :P /sarcasm

I think comprehending the problem, and how to describe it as a mathematical formula, is more important. If you can get a naturally spoken problem translated into the language of mathematics, then you understand a great deal more of the important stuff.

If you know what something does, then you can solve it yourself, if necessary. But part of advancing as a species means that we leave some practices of the old world in the past, and move forward. I see no reason to not capitalize on calculators. Imagine how much further ahead our kids could be?

Computers too. In fact, let's take technology all the way back before the abacus. Nobody should ever need to reproduce the problem physically, or rely on another system to do it for them, quickly. :P /sarcasm

I think comprehending the problem, and how to describe it as a mathematical formula, is more important. If you can get a naturally spoken problem translated into the language of mathematics, then you understand a great deal more of the important stuff.

If you know what something does, then you can solve it yourself, if necessary. But part of advancing as a species means that we leave some practices of the old world in the past, and move forward. I see no reason to not capitalize on calculators. Imagine how much further ahead our kids could be?

Oh, geez, not him again. Every year the same complaint. :-P

School is useless

Fascinating.

Comcast apps

Wth?? It's genius!

Might be useful for those of us with dyscalculia.

Very interesting ,i got a new system 4 calculation, Thanx 4 dis novel idea.

Useless method if you are sitting a Maths or Physics exam with so many questions to answer. Brain rules.

Barry Gillespie

+

1

2

1

2

1

Looks slower than regular multiplication.

NOOOO!!!!! I DISCOVERED THIS THREE DAYS AGO ON THE INTERWEBS AND WAS GOING TO POST IT BUT NOW I CAN'T!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Method for multiplication any number near(+5 or -5) 10,100,1000,10000,....

Examples:-

14x8

-------

14 +4

8 - 2

4x-2=-8

14-2=12 or 8+4=12

answer is 120-8=112

98x96

---------

98 - 2

96 - 4

-2x-4 = 8

98-4 = 94 or 96-2 = 94

answer is 9400 + 8 = 9408

996 x 997

--------------

996 - 4

997 - 3

-4 x -3 = 12

996 - 3 = 993 or 997 - 4 = 993

993000+12=993012

Examples:-

14x8

-------

14 +4

8 - 2

4x-2=-8

14-2=12 or 8+4=12

answer is 120-8=112

98x96

---------

98 - 2

96 - 4

-2x-4 = 8

98-4 = 94 or 96-2 = 94

answer is 9400 + 8 = 9408

996 x 997

--------------

996 - 4

997 - 3

-4 x -3 = 12

996 - 3 = 993 or 997 - 4 = 993

993000+12=993012

This seems arbitrary. I don't get it.

Our ways is faster.

Noise and fury signifying nothing.

Andy Kasprzak

+

1

2

1

2

1

joke 2+2=22

Jeremy Lucas

+

1

2

1

2

1

+Terrence Crouse II Not necessarily, after some practice, the "japanese" way is a lot quicker

10*10+1-100=1

Doesn't seem any faster than the way I learned. Definitely a cool technique though.

+Fazil Abdul Lathif 14X8

...............

112,,,,,,dis is 1 step calculation & we get answer ,bt ur method 4 multiplication of 14x8 is based on five steps,so it is interesting bt lengthy.Also take trouble 2 clear when how much has 2b added &subtracted ,make d process more simple ,

try u can do it.

...............

112,,,,,,dis is 1 step calculation & we get answer ,bt ur method 4 multiplication of 14x8 is based on five steps,so it is interesting bt lengthy.Also take trouble 2 clear when how much has 2b added &subtracted ,make d process more simple ,

try u can do it.

+Keith Cotton It is always useful 2 memrise d table & faster than any method .

+abdul wahab ansari It is a generalization... apply them to big numbers for better results...

Same method for squares

Square(98)

98 - 2

is 98-2 | 2x2

thats 9604

sqr(102)

102+2 | 2x2

10404

sqr(996)

996-4 | 4x4

992016

Every method has it's own merits. To know more read any vedic mathematics book

Same method for squares

Square(98)

98 - 2

is 98-2 | 2x2

thats 9604

sqr(102)

102+2 | 2x2

10404

sqr(996)

996-4 | 4x4

992016

Every method has it's own merits. To know more read any vedic mathematics book

+Fazil Abdul Lathif What is the method to choose weather to add 2 subtract 2 or add four.

In the end, it's about the same speed. This is just a way that works better for those who are better at solving visually...

+Tom Luerken the base is 10,100, 1000 so add 2 and subtract 2 are the operations required to obtain the number

Well numbers donate cash

i personally think you're right anyway.

well it depends.

but that's the truth...

stop enough

well, i personally think its only those that have the idea of Oracle, java, or better say the programers knows the through meaning of the figure.

Add a comment...