How can you easily multiply large numbers like 1538x483?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Domino83
  • Start date Start date
Domino83
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I've got a very helpfull system for making calculations, more exactly: multiplying.

How do you calculate large multiplications like e.g. 1538x483
Takes some time, isn't it?

Well, I found this system for solving the problem and it's great.
Whatch this, amazing:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/308408/Easy Multiplying. Don

Greetz
Domino

Edit: I see it has been removed today... strange.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What I see is just a complexification of normal multiplication. Whats the point?
 
I'm sorry, but this is pretty stupid ... This is merely obfuscation of the normal polynomial time, grade-school multiplication.

If you want some "amazing" systems for mulitplying large numbers, look up the divide-and-conquer selection algorithm, or Fast Fourier Transforms. Or, for a system that is doable by hand use the system Al Khwarizmi discovered, one that is used today in some European countries. It works by synthesizing a binary-styled multiplication. You multiply and divide number a and number b, respectively, by 2, then strike out the even rows and add up column b.

I won't bother showing how it works, because this is utterly pointless. The point being, that the technique outlined in that video is nothing but a rewrite of the grade-school algorithm, and nowhere near "the best way to multiply large numbers".
 
Last edited:
I like to use the FOIL method for multiplication of 2 or 3 digit numbers, e.g.

79x91=(80-1)(90+1)=7200+80-90-1=7189​

which is not very fast, but I don't care to memorize much of my times table, so it helps me.
 
benorin said:
I like to use the FOIL method for multiplication of 2 or 3 digit numbers, e.g.

79x91=(80-1)(90+1)=7200+80-90-1=7189​

which is not very fast, but I don't care to memorize much of my times table, so it helps me.
I would have done that same product a little differently (I find it hard to store 3 or 4 numbers in my head at a time and retrieve them later):

79\times 91=(85-6)(85+6)=85^2-6^2=7225-36=7189

Different strokes!
 
Hi - I didn't see the original (removed) link, but suggest you check out a famous book called Figuring by Shakuntala Devi. All the above methods are just basic examples of the Vedic system she resuscitated. Older members may remember she's the prodigy whose mental arithmetic beat the calculator on Blue Peter!

My favourite is squaring two-digit numbers ending in 5: eg 75 squared. You just take the first number, 7 in this case, and add 1, getting 8; multiply these together, giving 56; stick 25 on the end to give 5625, the answer. Amaze your friends!:biggrin:

The general methods allow multiplication of long numbers with the answer on the line below!

eg (deliberately simple example)
3 1 2
1 2 1
37752

Working from left to right: (3x1) 3 (3x2 + 1x1) 7 (3x1 + 1x2 + 2x1) 7 (1x1 + 2x2) 5 (2x1) 2

Check it out, it's seriously quick!:eek:

Best wishes

x=7
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top