1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Have I found a new math trick for multiplication?

  1. Mar 31, 2010 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 31, 2010 #2
    Cool, I still have to read the rest of it, I just wanted to let you know about this:

    EDIT: Ok I read all of it. Uhm...I never heard about the 10x-x method, and I tried doing one calculation with your method and one different calculation with the 10x-x method which you explained at the bottom. Your method MIGHT be easier for 3 digit numbers (as the 10x-x method involves subtracting 3 digit number from a 4 digit number which might prove challenging for some people)...however...there is no discussion that with a 2 digit number....the 10x-x method is 5 times faster.

    Your process takes at least 4 steps..and one of those steps is a variation of the 10x-x method using the number minus the approx tens with a 0 dropped.

    It is like the Rube Goldberg version of the 10x-x method :) ...[however it might prove simpler and faster with 3 digit numbers]...it all depends how people good are at subtracting big numbers

    Last edited: Mar 31, 2010
  4. Apr 1, 2010 #3
    Ugg, that's the 2nd mistake I made, thanks for pointing it out. I definitely think for 3 digits my way is easier, I tried both ways and I find it hard for me to calculate arithmetic that high, but I'm pretty average in math ability.
  5. Apr 2, 2010 #4
    What's the 10x - x trick?
  6. Apr 4, 2010 #5
    The 10x-x trick is what it looks like -- 10x-x = 9x, so if you want to multiply 9x25 you can think of it this way: 10 times 25=250, and 250 minus 25 equals 225.

    When I multiply a single digit number by a double-digit number I usually do it backwards. For example, to multiply 7 times 67 I would think: 7 times 60 is 420 and then add 7 times 7 to get 469. Likewise 9 times 25 is 180 plus 45=225.
  7. Apr 7, 2010 #6
    What if we apply the methodology to two examples, 100 and 101?

    I believe that for the case of 100, we should consider:

    100 - 10 = 90
    and then 9 + 0 + 0 = 9
    and therefore the answer is 900

    As for the case of 101, we should consider:
    101 - 11 = 90
    and then 90 + 0 = 9
    and therefore the answer is 900?
  8. Apr 7, 2010 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Essentially this method involves an approximation step (that is based on "10x -x" but with an easier subtraction) followed by a correction step (that is based on the modulo 9 technique of "casting out nines").

    Lets looks in detail at how your method works and why it might be easier for some people.

    - The first step is to factor out the "10" from the "10x-x" method to give a numerically smaller subtraction. 9x = 10x - x = 10(x - x/10). This is exact but it requires subtracting a decimal, "x/10", and so holds no advantage.

    - Replacing "x/10" with the approximation [itex]\lceil x/10 \rceil[/itex] (ceiling function) gives the required simplification to the subtraction but results in an approximate answer, having a maximum error of 9.

    - Finally the correction step uses the fact that the approx answer is always "under" by 0..9 to allow a correction by the "digit sum" modulo 9 method. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casting_out_nines

    The only problem (as pointed out with MDR123's example above) is that the error is 0..9 and 0 and 9 are congruent modulo 9. In my opinion easiest way to get around this is just to stipulate that : if any rounding up is performed by the ceiling function then the correction step must also add a strictly positive "modulo 9 correction". For example, in the "101*9" case given above we would not be able to stop at the preliminary "900" answer just because it's modulo 9 correct. Since [itex]\lceil 101/10 \rceil[/itex] did require a finite upward rounding then the preliminary answer of 900 must be corrected upward to the next modulo 9 consistent value of 909.
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2010
  9. Apr 24, 2010 #8
    this method can be used by multiplication of 3 too..
    for example: 3 is a factor of 27, 2+7=9 which can be divided by 3.
    same case with multiplication of 9
  10. Apr 25, 2010 #9
    It's not the same, because it can also break down to 3, 6, or 9. If you can find a way to get the exact answer from it, then it will work, but it isn't narrowed down as simply as 9 is.
  11. May 19, 2010 #10
    I finally uploaded the video I made of me using it:

    ...and of course in typical dratsab fashion I make a mistake.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook