5 ms·
But that's not really an argument for learning your twelve times table. In fact it's an argument that basically it's trivial to learn your twelves if you alread
by jameshart 11y ago
But that's not really an argument for learning your twelve times table. In fact it's an argument that basically it's trivial to learn your twelves if you already know your threes and fours - the twelves are the numbers that appear in both lists. Or you can just skipcount your four times table. Overall, seems to argue against having to learn it.
- lukeschlather 11y agoMaybe. But the thing is if it's easier to memorize the composites, why not skip primes entirely over 5? Just memorize 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 . I'd have to run the numbers. It would be interesting to consider different subsets. I also think adding in 15 would probably worth the extra number for real-world datasets.
- lmm 11y ago> Maybe. But the thing is if it's easier to memorize the composites, why not skip primes entirely over 5? Just memorize 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 . Isn't that backwards? 7 is the hardest, so you spend more time on it, not less.
- lukeschlather 11y agoThat's why I'm suggesting you not bother memorizing 7 since there are higher numbers that provide similar utility for estimation but are much easier to memorize.
- lmm 11y agoI don't think the times tables are for estimation.