4 ms·
Great. Now do it for 79*86.
by Jabbles 14y ago
Great. Now do it for 79*86.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- est 14y agoI'd rather 86*80-86 == 6880-86 == 6794
- ricardobeat 14y agoI do that too, round to the nearest multiple of 5 or 10 and fix it at the end :D
- Ntrails 14y agorealistically all this or any other process is doing is expansion and taking advantage of the commutative nature of multiplication. (70 + 9)x(80 + 6) 70x80 + 9x80 + 6x70 + 6x9 56(00) + 72(0) + 42(0) + 54 Guess what - long story short you need to know your times tables. I don't see how the lines method is any easier than long multiplication, which in itself is not hard with a little time and explanation. If you can use the lines, or any other method, as a way of conveying what I did above - then you've succeeded. Edit: Stars go to italics and I don't know the escape character
- saraid216 14y ago> I don't see how the lines method is any easier than long multiplication You probably learned multiplication using something similar to the lines method. If you had 3 x 4, you'd draw out 3 circles and then put 4 more circles inside and count up all the small ones. This is just a logical extension of that.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago* It's not backslash! I think you can only do * with an unpaired * terminator * ? I think you can only do * with an unpaired * terminator ? I think you can only do xx with an unpaired xx terminator xx ? [that line is this with no spaces around :I think you can only do x * x with an unpaired x * x terminator x * x ? Nope, looks like as long as it's spaced from the prior/next character then it doesn't cause italicisation. Help says: "Text surrounded by asterisks is italicized, if the character after the first asterisk isn't whitespace."