What method for mentally computing 2-digit multiplication problems, minimizes the amount of mental steps?











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












So I've been practicing alot of mental math recently and ofcourse as a part of that, multiplying a double-digit number by another double-digit number. I have been doing some research into what the quickest way to computing the outcome of such a multiplication is but I still find myself having to go through too many steps in my head for each exercise. The goal is to have someone tell you a problem and then, without having them repeat the problem, computing the answer.



Let's take as an example: $63*88$



I will go over multiple methods that I know for computing this mentally, and explain my problems with each of them.



1) The elementary method. I think this is the first method of multiplying that everyone learns. It finds the answer by brute force multiplication and addition. Using this method on our example exercise would mean we take the following steps:




  • First simplify the left factor and multiply it with the complete right factor, yielding:


$60*88=60*80+60*8=4800+480=5280$




  • Then multiply the remaining $3$ with our right factor and add it to the result above, yielding:


$3*88=264 rightarrow 5280+264=5544$



It immediately becomes clear that this method takes too long and can turn into quite a complicated mess, because you have to quickly combine non-trivial multiplication and addition. With this method you have to memorize the problem, then the outcome of the first multiplication, then do the second multiplication and remember all outcomes in order to add them together. We could think of every '$=$' sign as a mental step.



2) The second method comes from a branch called Vedic math. On paper this way of multiplying looks more complicated but with slight practice it becomes apparant that it's much quicker. It works like this:




  • First multiply the two right most digist with eachother, yielding:


$3*8=24$




  • We carry the $2$ and the $4$ is the last digit of our final answer. We then do a cross multiplication where we multiply the right digit of the second factor by the left digit of the first factor and vice versa, and add the outcomes together (not forgetting the carried $2$), yielding:


$8*6+8*3+2=48+24+2=74$




  • From this we see that our second to last digit is also $4$, and we will again carry the $7$. For the last step we multiple the left digit of the first factor with the left digit of the right factor (not forgetting our carried $7$). This gives:


$6*8+7=48+7=55$




  • We now know that our first two digits are $5$ and $5$, yielding our total answer of $5544$


Again, on paper this looks like many more steps than the brute force method but its much easier to keep track of the things you have to remember for the final answer.



3) An optional third method could be similar to the above method but instead of doing the cross multiplication as a second step, we do it as our first step and then do the original first step. I would imagine opinions on whether this is really quicker are divided but it helps with limiting the amount of calculations to remember.



4) Finally, the standard method could be to round up one of the factors to the nearest ten multiple and then subtracting whatever excess you added. In this case that would yield:



$63*90=5670 rightarrow 5670-2*63=5544$



This method becomes much more complicated however when we try to compute something like $44*86$ because rounding to the nearest ten leaves us with much more excess.



Maybe the answer to my relatively broad question is simply: "fast multiplication comes from experience". However, I'm very curious to hear any other methods that are out there. Apologies for the long post but I hope I clarified my thought process enough.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    Yes, all of those. Squaring a number ending in 5 can be useful e.g $35^2$ can be done as 3*4 = 12, put 00 on the end = 1200 then add 25 = 1225. Combine with difference of 2 squares so 33*37 =$35^2$ - $2^2$ = 1221.
    – Paul
    2 days ago















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












So I've been practicing alot of mental math recently and ofcourse as a part of that, multiplying a double-digit number by another double-digit number. I have been doing some research into what the quickest way to computing the outcome of such a multiplication is but I still find myself having to go through too many steps in my head for each exercise. The goal is to have someone tell you a problem and then, without having them repeat the problem, computing the answer.



Let's take as an example: $63*88$



I will go over multiple methods that I know for computing this mentally, and explain my problems with each of them.



1) The elementary method. I think this is the first method of multiplying that everyone learns. It finds the answer by brute force multiplication and addition. Using this method on our example exercise would mean we take the following steps:




  • First simplify the left factor and multiply it with the complete right factor, yielding:


$60*88=60*80+60*8=4800+480=5280$




  • Then multiply the remaining $3$ with our right factor and add it to the result above, yielding:


$3*88=264 rightarrow 5280+264=5544$



It immediately becomes clear that this method takes too long and can turn into quite a complicated mess, because you have to quickly combine non-trivial multiplication and addition. With this method you have to memorize the problem, then the outcome of the first multiplication, then do the second multiplication and remember all outcomes in order to add them together. We could think of every '$=$' sign as a mental step.



2) The second method comes from a branch called Vedic math. On paper this way of multiplying looks more complicated but with slight practice it becomes apparant that it's much quicker. It works like this:




  • First multiply the two right most digist with eachother, yielding:


$3*8=24$




  • We carry the $2$ and the $4$ is the last digit of our final answer. We then do a cross multiplication where we multiply the right digit of the second factor by the left digit of the first factor and vice versa, and add the outcomes together (not forgetting the carried $2$), yielding:


$8*6+8*3+2=48+24+2=74$




  • From this we see that our second to last digit is also $4$, and we will again carry the $7$. For the last step we multiple the left digit of the first factor with the left digit of the right factor (not forgetting our carried $7$). This gives:


$6*8+7=48+7=55$




  • We now know that our first two digits are $5$ and $5$, yielding our total answer of $5544$


Again, on paper this looks like many more steps than the brute force method but its much easier to keep track of the things you have to remember for the final answer.



3) An optional third method could be similar to the above method but instead of doing the cross multiplication as a second step, we do it as our first step and then do the original first step. I would imagine opinions on whether this is really quicker are divided but it helps with limiting the amount of calculations to remember.



4) Finally, the standard method could be to round up one of the factors to the nearest ten multiple and then subtracting whatever excess you added. In this case that would yield:



$63*90=5670 rightarrow 5670-2*63=5544$



This method becomes much more complicated however when we try to compute something like $44*86$ because rounding to the nearest ten leaves us with much more excess.



Maybe the answer to my relatively broad question is simply: "fast multiplication comes from experience". However, I'm very curious to hear any other methods that are out there. Apologies for the long post but I hope I clarified my thought process enough.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    Yes, all of those. Squaring a number ending in 5 can be useful e.g $35^2$ can be done as 3*4 = 12, put 00 on the end = 1200 then add 25 = 1225. Combine with difference of 2 squares so 33*37 =$35^2$ - $2^2$ = 1221.
    – Paul
    2 days ago













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











So I've been practicing alot of mental math recently and ofcourse as a part of that, multiplying a double-digit number by another double-digit number. I have been doing some research into what the quickest way to computing the outcome of such a multiplication is but I still find myself having to go through too many steps in my head for each exercise. The goal is to have someone tell you a problem and then, without having them repeat the problem, computing the answer.



Let's take as an example: $63*88$



I will go over multiple methods that I know for computing this mentally, and explain my problems with each of them.



1) The elementary method. I think this is the first method of multiplying that everyone learns. It finds the answer by brute force multiplication and addition. Using this method on our example exercise would mean we take the following steps:




  • First simplify the left factor and multiply it with the complete right factor, yielding:


$60*88=60*80+60*8=4800+480=5280$




  • Then multiply the remaining $3$ with our right factor and add it to the result above, yielding:


$3*88=264 rightarrow 5280+264=5544$



It immediately becomes clear that this method takes too long and can turn into quite a complicated mess, because you have to quickly combine non-trivial multiplication and addition. With this method you have to memorize the problem, then the outcome of the first multiplication, then do the second multiplication and remember all outcomes in order to add them together. We could think of every '$=$' sign as a mental step.



2) The second method comes from a branch called Vedic math. On paper this way of multiplying looks more complicated but with slight practice it becomes apparant that it's much quicker. It works like this:




  • First multiply the two right most digist with eachother, yielding:


$3*8=24$




  • We carry the $2$ and the $4$ is the last digit of our final answer. We then do a cross multiplication where we multiply the right digit of the second factor by the left digit of the first factor and vice versa, and add the outcomes together (not forgetting the carried $2$), yielding:


$8*6+8*3+2=48+24+2=74$




  • From this we see that our second to last digit is also $4$, and we will again carry the $7$. For the last step we multiple the left digit of the first factor with the left digit of the right factor (not forgetting our carried $7$). This gives:


$6*8+7=48+7=55$




  • We now know that our first two digits are $5$ and $5$, yielding our total answer of $5544$


Again, on paper this looks like many more steps than the brute force method but its much easier to keep track of the things you have to remember for the final answer.



3) An optional third method could be similar to the above method but instead of doing the cross multiplication as a second step, we do it as our first step and then do the original first step. I would imagine opinions on whether this is really quicker are divided but it helps with limiting the amount of calculations to remember.



4) Finally, the standard method could be to round up one of the factors to the nearest ten multiple and then subtracting whatever excess you added. In this case that would yield:



$63*90=5670 rightarrow 5670-2*63=5544$



This method becomes much more complicated however when we try to compute something like $44*86$ because rounding to the nearest ten leaves us with much more excess.



Maybe the answer to my relatively broad question is simply: "fast multiplication comes from experience". However, I'm very curious to hear any other methods that are out there. Apologies for the long post but I hope I clarified my thought process enough.










share|cite|improve this question















So I've been practicing alot of mental math recently and ofcourse as a part of that, multiplying a double-digit number by another double-digit number. I have been doing some research into what the quickest way to computing the outcome of such a multiplication is but I still find myself having to go through too many steps in my head for each exercise. The goal is to have someone tell you a problem and then, without having them repeat the problem, computing the answer.



Let's take as an example: $63*88$



I will go over multiple methods that I know for computing this mentally, and explain my problems with each of them.



1) The elementary method. I think this is the first method of multiplying that everyone learns. It finds the answer by brute force multiplication and addition. Using this method on our example exercise would mean we take the following steps:




  • First simplify the left factor and multiply it with the complete right factor, yielding:


$60*88=60*80+60*8=4800+480=5280$




  • Then multiply the remaining $3$ with our right factor and add it to the result above, yielding:


$3*88=264 rightarrow 5280+264=5544$



It immediately becomes clear that this method takes too long and can turn into quite a complicated mess, because you have to quickly combine non-trivial multiplication and addition. With this method you have to memorize the problem, then the outcome of the first multiplication, then do the second multiplication and remember all outcomes in order to add them together. We could think of every '$=$' sign as a mental step.



2) The second method comes from a branch called Vedic math. On paper this way of multiplying looks more complicated but with slight practice it becomes apparant that it's much quicker. It works like this:




  • First multiply the two right most digist with eachother, yielding:


$3*8=24$




  • We carry the $2$ and the $4$ is the last digit of our final answer. We then do a cross multiplication where we multiply the right digit of the second factor by the left digit of the first factor and vice versa, and add the outcomes together (not forgetting the carried $2$), yielding:


$8*6+8*3+2=48+24+2=74$




  • From this we see that our second to last digit is also $4$, and we will again carry the $7$. For the last step we multiple the left digit of the first factor with the left digit of the right factor (not forgetting our carried $7$). This gives:


$6*8+7=48+7=55$




  • We now know that our first two digits are $5$ and $5$, yielding our total answer of $5544$


Again, on paper this looks like many more steps than the brute force method but its much easier to keep track of the things you have to remember for the final answer.



3) An optional third method could be similar to the above method but instead of doing the cross multiplication as a second step, we do it as our first step and then do the original first step. I would imagine opinions on whether this is really quicker are divided but it helps with limiting the amount of calculations to remember.



4) Finally, the standard method could be to round up one of the factors to the nearest ten multiple and then subtracting whatever excess you added. In this case that would yield:



$63*90=5670 rightarrow 5670-2*63=5544$



This method becomes much more complicated however when we try to compute something like $44*86$ because rounding to the nearest ten leaves us with much more excess.



Maybe the answer to my relatively broad question is simply: "fast multiplication comes from experience". However, I'm very curious to hear any other methods that are out there. Apologies for the long post but I hope I clarified my thought process enough.







algebra-precalculus soft-question arithmetic mental-arithmetic






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









David C. Ullrich

57.1k43790




57.1k43790










asked 2 days ago









S. Crim

789




789








  • 2




    Yes, all of those. Squaring a number ending in 5 can be useful e.g $35^2$ can be done as 3*4 = 12, put 00 on the end = 1200 then add 25 = 1225. Combine with difference of 2 squares so 33*37 =$35^2$ - $2^2$ = 1221.
    – Paul
    2 days ago














  • 2




    Yes, all of those. Squaring a number ending in 5 can be useful e.g $35^2$ can be done as 3*4 = 12, put 00 on the end = 1200 then add 25 = 1225. Combine with difference of 2 squares so 33*37 =$35^2$ - $2^2$ = 1221.
    – Paul
    2 days ago








2




2




Yes, all of those. Squaring a number ending in 5 can be useful e.g $35^2$ can be done as 3*4 = 12, put 00 on the end = 1200 then add 25 = 1225. Combine with difference of 2 squares so 33*37 =$35^2$ - $2^2$ = 1221.
– Paul
2 days ago




Yes, all of those. Squaring a number ending in 5 can be useful e.g $35^2$ can be done as 3*4 = 12, put 00 on the end = 1200 then add 25 = 1225. Combine with difference of 2 squares so 33*37 =$35^2$ - $2^2$ = 1221.
– Paul
2 days ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote














Maybe the answer to my relatively broad question is simply: "fast multiplication comes from experience".




I really think it is.



All your methods work, and from experience, you'll know when to use ease of these methods.



On the other hand, here is a method you didn't use, and works pretty well in this case: [prime] factors decomposition.



You have to multiply 63 by 88.



$63 times 88 = 63 times 11 times 8 = 63 times 11 times 2^3$.



$63 times 11 = 693$



Therefore



$63 times 88 = 693 times 2times 2 times 2 = 1386 times 2 times 2 = 2772 times 2 = 5544$



I favor this method anytime I have to multiply by powers of 2 (2,4,8,16,...), because "$times 2$" is an operation your brain is used to do from really young age. Doing it several times can sometime be quicker that doing a one shot "$times 16$" or "$times 32$".



Moreover, here, when you're done with the powers of 2, you're left with 11, and "$times 11$" happen to also be a really easy operation on 2 digits numbers.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • The method you mentioned is indeed new for me, so thank you for bringing it up. I wonder if it is actually worth studying multiple methods to the point where you can use them effictively, rather than mastering a single method though. However, I've been playing with the Vedic math method for quite some time now and feel that I am starting to hit a barrier in terms of speed. Eventually you will be able to execute everything at maximum speed and the only thing slowing you down is the amount of steps you must take. I guess it could also vary per person.
    – S. Crim
    2 days ago










  • I also think it vary form one person to another. And I'm really not into fast mental multiplication, so I'm not going to teach you what is good for you. I just wanted to share in case you find it usefull.
    – F.Carette
    2 days ago


















up vote
1
down vote













For me, it depends on why I am doing the problem and the accuracy I want. If I want an exact answer I work from left to right, doing the most significant multiply first. I will alter your example to $63*87$ so we can tell all the digits apart. I would first do $6*8=48$, then $3*8=24$ and add that on one digit right to get $480+24=504$, then $6*7=42$ and add that in $504+42=546$ and finally $3*7=21$ and add that in one to the right getting $5460+21=5481$. If lower accuracy is acceptable, you can stop part way through (more important if there are more digits-I can keep track of $4 times 3$ this way when in practice).



For approximations I will often round and correct, so I would do $63*88approx 60*(1+0.05)*90*(1-0.02)approx 5400*(1+0.03)approx 5550$



Knowing more facts helps. If you know that $3*37=111$ you can multiply $63*37=21*111=2331$. If you know $7*11*13=1001$ that helps a lot when it comes up. It is said that some of the stage calculators just know the multiplication table up to $99*99$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • +1 for $7 times 11 times 13$.
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 days ago










  • Interesting methods, but are they really feasible to perform if someone would ask you ''what's $ab*cd$", and you would have to compute it without them repeating the answer? Ofcourse when writing down a problem on paper it becomes much easier to see patters or simplifications on the problem but this becomes much more difficult when making notes isn't allowed. Anyway, thank you for your methods!
    – S. Crim
    yesterday










  • Absolutely this is feasible if you practice. I would think of the factor $1+0.05$ as $+5%$. As I said, I have done more digits than $2 times 2$.
    – Ross Millikan
    yesterday


















up vote
1
down vote













I am hoping that an example will be enough to show the general pattern. With practice, this is very doable.



If your memory is good, you can multiply a two-digit number times a two-digit number in your head. for example, to do



$$begin{array}{r} 56 \ times 78 \ hline end{array}$$



in your head.



$6 times 8$ is $48$. Place the $8$ and remember the $4$.



$$begin{array}{r}
color{red} 4 phantom{0} \
56 \
times 78 \ hline
8 end{array}
$$



$5times 8 + 7times 6 + 4 = 40 + 42 + 4 = 86$ Place the $6$ and remember the $8$.



$$begin{array}{r}
color{red}{84} phantom{0} \
56 \
times 78 \ hline
68 end{array}
$$



Finally, $5 times 7 + 8 = 35 + 8 = 43$. Place the $43$.



$$begin{array}{r}
color{red}{84} phantom{0} \
56 \
times 78 \ hline
4368 end{array}
$$





If two digits in a row or column are the same, you can take a shortcut. For example, to multiply $63 times 88$.



$$begin{array}{r} 63 \
times 88 \
hline end{array}
$$



$3 times 8 = 24$. Place the $4$ and remember the $2$.



$$begin{array}{r} color{red}2 phantom 0 \
63 \
times 88 \
hline
4
end{array}
$$



$(6 + 3) times 8 + color{red} 2 = 74$. Place the $4$ and remember the $7$.



$$begin{array}{r} color{red}{72} phantom 0 \
63 \
times 88 \
hline
44
end{array}
$$



$6 times 8 + color{red} 7 = 55$. Place the $55$.



$$begin{array}{r} color{red}{72} phantom 0 \
63 \
times 88 \
hline
5544
end{array}
$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Yeah, this is exactly the second method I described. Perhaps I was too vague with describing it though! My problem with this method is that, when you are not allowed to write things down on paper, you have to remember the digits you already placed while doing new calculations. Often times I wil have forgotten my last placed digit when I arrive at the final multiplication, unless I repeat my first step really quickly halfway through. This is exactly where I make ''useless'' mental steps. This problem most likely comes from too little experience on my part though.
    – S. Crim
    yesterday


















up vote
0
down vote













To answer this question you must make a very large number of assumptions, few of which are testable. For instance, it is conceivable that mnemonists can remember the entire multiplication table. Alternatively, often the first step is somehow classifying the problem (even times even, or sum of digits dividable by 3, etc.) and it is extremely difficult to know how many steps are being used. Moreover, some problems are "trivial" ($20 times 20$ or $10 times x$ for any $x$) and you won't perform them using one of the proposed tricky techniques. As such, will you quantify the "expected" number of operations?






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2995273%2fwhat-method-for-mentally-computing-2-digit-multiplication-problems-minimizes-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest
































    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote














    Maybe the answer to my relatively broad question is simply: "fast multiplication comes from experience".




    I really think it is.



    All your methods work, and from experience, you'll know when to use ease of these methods.



    On the other hand, here is a method you didn't use, and works pretty well in this case: [prime] factors decomposition.



    You have to multiply 63 by 88.



    $63 times 88 = 63 times 11 times 8 = 63 times 11 times 2^3$.



    $63 times 11 = 693$



    Therefore



    $63 times 88 = 693 times 2times 2 times 2 = 1386 times 2 times 2 = 2772 times 2 = 5544$



    I favor this method anytime I have to multiply by powers of 2 (2,4,8,16,...), because "$times 2$" is an operation your brain is used to do from really young age. Doing it several times can sometime be quicker that doing a one shot "$times 16$" or "$times 32$".



    Moreover, here, when you're done with the powers of 2, you're left with 11, and "$times 11$" happen to also be a really easy operation on 2 digits numbers.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • The method you mentioned is indeed new for me, so thank you for bringing it up. I wonder if it is actually worth studying multiple methods to the point where you can use them effictively, rather than mastering a single method though. However, I've been playing with the Vedic math method for quite some time now and feel that I am starting to hit a barrier in terms of speed. Eventually you will be able to execute everything at maximum speed and the only thing slowing you down is the amount of steps you must take. I guess it could also vary per person.
      – S. Crim
      2 days ago










    • I also think it vary form one person to another. And I'm really not into fast mental multiplication, so I'm not going to teach you what is good for you. I just wanted to share in case you find it usefull.
      – F.Carette
      2 days ago















    up vote
    1
    down vote














    Maybe the answer to my relatively broad question is simply: "fast multiplication comes from experience".




    I really think it is.



    All your methods work, and from experience, you'll know when to use ease of these methods.



    On the other hand, here is a method you didn't use, and works pretty well in this case: [prime] factors decomposition.



    You have to multiply 63 by 88.



    $63 times 88 = 63 times 11 times 8 = 63 times 11 times 2^3$.



    $63 times 11 = 693$



    Therefore



    $63 times 88 = 693 times 2times 2 times 2 = 1386 times 2 times 2 = 2772 times 2 = 5544$



    I favor this method anytime I have to multiply by powers of 2 (2,4,8,16,...), because "$times 2$" is an operation your brain is used to do from really young age. Doing it several times can sometime be quicker that doing a one shot "$times 16$" or "$times 32$".



    Moreover, here, when you're done with the powers of 2, you're left with 11, and "$times 11$" happen to also be a really easy operation on 2 digits numbers.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • The method you mentioned is indeed new for me, so thank you for bringing it up. I wonder if it is actually worth studying multiple methods to the point where you can use them effictively, rather than mastering a single method though. However, I've been playing with the Vedic math method for quite some time now and feel that I am starting to hit a barrier in terms of speed. Eventually you will be able to execute everything at maximum speed and the only thing slowing you down is the amount of steps you must take. I guess it could also vary per person.
      – S. Crim
      2 days ago










    • I also think it vary form one person to another. And I'm really not into fast mental multiplication, so I'm not going to teach you what is good for you. I just wanted to share in case you find it usefull.
      – F.Carette
      2 days ago













    up vote
    1
    down vote










    up vote
    1
    down vote










    Maybe the answer to my relatively broad question is simply: "fast multiplication comes from experience".




    I really think it is.



    All your methods work, and from experience, you'll know when to use ease of these methods.



    On the other hand, here is a method you didn't use, and works pretty well in this case: [prime] factors decomposition.



    You have to multiply 63 by 88.



    $63 times 88 = 63 times 11 times 8 = 63 times 11 times 2^3$.



    $63 times 11 = 693$



    Therefore



    $63 times 88 = 693 times 2times 2 times 2 = 1386 times 2 times 2 = 2772 times 2 = 5544$



    I favor this method anytime I have to multiply by powers of 2 (2,4,8,16,...), because "$times 2$" is an operation your brain is used to do from really young age. Doing it several times can sometime be quicker that doing a one shot "$times 16$" or "$times 32$".



    Moreover, here, when you're done with the powers of 2, you're left with 11, and "$times 11$" happen to also be a really easy operation on 2 digits numbers.






    share|cite|improve this answer













    Maybe the answer to my relatively broad question is simply: "fast multiplication comes from experience".




    I really think it is.



    All your methods work, and from experience, you'll know when to use ease of these methods.



    On the other hand, here is a method you didn't use, and works pretty well in this case: [prime] factors decomposition.



    You have to multiply 63 by 88.



    $63 times 88 = 63 times 11 times 8 = 63 times 11 times 2^3$.



    $63 times 11 = 693$



    Therefore



    $63 times 88 = 693 times 2times 2 times 2 = 1386 times 2 times 2 = 2772 times 2 = 5544$



    I favor this method anytime I have to multiply by powers of 2 (2,4,8,16,...), because "$times 2$" is an operation your brain is used to do from really young age. Doing it several times can sometime be quicker that doing a one shot "$times 16$" or "$times 32$".



    Moreover, here, when you're done with the powers of 2, you're left with 11, and "$times 11$" happen to also be a really easy operation on 2 digits numbers.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    F.Carette

    1,21312




    1,21312












    • The method you mentioned is indeed new for me, so thank you for bringing it up. I wonder if it is actually worth studying multiple methods to the point where you can use them effictively, rather than mastering a single method though. However, I've been playing with the Vedic math method for quite some time now and feel that I am starting to hit a barrier in terms of speed. Eventually you will be able to execute everything at maximum speed and the only thing slowing you down is the amount of steps you must take. I guess it could also vary per person.
      – S. Crim
      2 days ago










    • I also think it vary form one person to another. And I'm really not into fast mental multiplication, so I'm not going to teach you what is good for you. I just wanted to share in case you find it usefull.
      – F.Carette
      2 days ago


















    • The method you mentioned is indeed new for me, so thank you for bringing it up. I wonder if it is actually worth studying multiple methods to the point where you can use them effictively, rather than mastering a single method though. However, I've been playing with the Vedic math method for quite some time now and feel that I am starting to hit a barrier in terms of speed. Eventually you will be able to execute everything at maximum speed and the only thing slowing you down is the amount of steps you must take. I guess it could also vary per person.
      – S. Crim
      2 days ago










    • I also think it vary form one person to another. And I'm really not into fast mental multiplication, so I'm not going to teach you what is good for you. I just wanted to share in case you find it usefull.
      – F.Carette
      2 days ago
















    The method you mentioned is indeed new for me, so thank you for bringing it up. I wonder if it is actually worth studying multiple methods to the point where you can use them effictively, rather than mastering a single method though. However, I've been playing with the Vedic math method for quite some time now and feel that I am starting to hit a barrier in terms of speed. Eventually you will be able to execute everything at maximum speed and the only thing slowing you down is the amount of steps you must take. I guess it could also vary per person.
    – S. Crim
    2 days ago




    The method you mentioned is indeed new for me, so thank you for bringing it up. I wonder if it is actually worth studying multiple methods to the point where you can use them effictively, rather than mastering a single method though. However, I've been playing with the Vedic math method for quite some time now and feel that I am starting to hit a barrier in terms of speed. Eventually you will be able to execute everything at maximum speed and the only thing slowing you down is the amount of steps you must take. I guess it could also vary per person.
    – S. Crim
    2 days ago












    I also think it vary form one person to another. And I'm really not into fast mental multiplication, so I'm not going to teach you what is good for you. I just wanted to share in case you find it usefull.
    – F.Carette
    2 days ago




    I also think it vary form one person to another. And I'm really not into fast mental multiplication, so I'm not going to teach you what is good for you. I just wanted to share in case you find it usefull.
    – F.Carette
    2 days ago










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    For me, it depends on why I am doing the problem and the accuracy I want. If I want an exact answer I work from left to right, doing the most significant multiply first. I will alter your example to $63*87$ so we can tell all the digits apart. I would first do $6*8=48$, then $3*8=24$ and add that on one digit right to get $480+24=504$, then $6*7=42$ and add that in $504+42=546$ and finally $3*7=21$ and add that in one to the right getting $5460+21=5481$. If lower accuracy is acceptable, you can stop part way through (more important if there are more digits-I can keep track of $4 times 3$ this way when in practice).



    For approximations I will often round and correct, so I would do $63*88approx 60*(1+0.05)*90*(1-0.02)approx 5400*(1+0.03)approx 5550$



    Knowing more facts helps. If you know that $3*37=111$ you can multiply $63*37=21*111=2331$. If you know $7*11*13=1001$ that helps a lot when it comes up. It is said that some of the stage calculators just know the multiplication table up to $99*99$






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • +1 for $7 times 11 times 13$.
      – Ethan Bolker
      2 days ago










    • Interesting methods, but are they really feasible to perform if someone would ask you ''what's $ab*cd$", and you would have to compute it without them repeating the answer? Ofcourse when writing down a problem on paper it becomes much easier to see patters or simplifications on the problem but this becomes much more difficult when making notes isn't allowed. Anyway, thank you for your methods!
      – S. Crim
      yesterday










    • Absolutely this is feasible if you practice. I would think of the factor $1+0.05$ as $+5%$. As I said, I have done more digits than $2 times 2$.
      – Ross Millikan
      yesterday















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    For me, it depends on why I am doing the problem and the accuracy I want. If I want an exact answer I work from left to right, doing the most significant multiply first. I will alter your example to $63*87$ so we can tell all the digits apart. I would first do $6*8=48$, then $3*8=24$ and add that on one digit right to get $480+24=504$, then $6*7=42$ and add that in $504+42=546$ and finally $3*7=21$ and add that in one to the right getting $5460+21=5481$. If lower accuracy is acceptable, you can stop part way through (more important if there are more digits-I can keep track of $4 times 3$ this way when in practice).



    For approximations I will often round and correct, so I would do $63*88approx 60*(1+0.05)*90*(1-0.02)approx 5400*(1+0.03)approx 5550$



    Knowing more facts helps. If you know that $3*37=111$ you can multiply $63*37=21*111=2331$. If you know $7*11*13=1001$ that helps a lot when it comes up. It is said that some of the stage calculators just know the multiplication table up to $99*99$






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • +1 for $7 times 11 times 13$.
      – Ethan Bolker
      2 days ago










    • Interesting methods, but are they really feasible to perform if someone would ask you ''what's $ab*cd$", and you would have to compute it without them repeating the answer? Ofcourse when writing down a problem on paper it becomes much easier to see patters or simplifications on the problem but this becomes much more difficult when making notes isn't allowed. Anyway, thank you for your methods!
      – S. Crim
      yesterday










    • Absolutely this is feasible if you practice. I would think of the factor $1+0.05$ as $+5%$. As I said, I have done more digits than $2 times 2$.
      – Ross Millikan
      yesterday













    up vote
    1
    down vote










    up vote
    1
    down vote









    For me, it depends on why I am doing the problem and the accuracy I want. If I want an exact answer I work from left to right, doing the most significant multiply first. I will alter your example to $63*87$ so we can tell all the digits apart. I would first do $6*8=48$, then $3*8=24$ and add that on one digit right to get $480+24=504$, then $6*7=42$ and add that in $504+42=546$ and finally $3*7=21$ and add that in one to the right getting $5460+21=5481$. If lower accuracy is acceptable, you can stop part way through (more important if there are more digits-I can keep track of $4 times 3$ this way when in practice).



    For approximations I will often round and correct, so I would do $63*88approx 60*(1+0.05)*90*(1-0.02)approx 5400*(1+0.03)approx 5550$



    Knowing more facts helps. If you know that $3*37=111$ you can multiply $63*37=21*111=2331$. If you know $7*11*13=1001$ that helps a lot when it comes up. It is said that some of the stage calculators just know the multiplication table up to $99*99$






    share|cite|improve this answer












    For me, it depends on why I am doing the problem and the accuracy I want. If I want an exact answer I work from left to right, doing the most significant multiply first. I will alter your example to $63*87$ so we can tell all the digits apart. I would first do $6*8=48$, then $3*8=24$ and add that on one digit right to get $480+24=504$, then $6*7=42$ and add that in $504+42=546$ and finally $3*7=21$ and add that in one to the right getting $5460+21=5481$. If lower accuracy is acceptable, you can stop part way through (more important if there are more digits-I can keep track of $4 times 3$ this way when in practice).



    For approximations I will often round and correct, so I would do $63*88approx 60*(1+0.05)*90*(1-0.02)approx 5400*(1+0.03)approx 5550$



    Knowing more facts helps. If you know that $3*37=111$ you can multiply $63*37=21*111=2331$. If you know $7*11*13=1001$ that helps a lot when it comes up. It is said that some of the stage calculators just know the multiplication table up to $99*99$







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    Ross Millikan

    286k23195363




    286k23195363












    • +1 for $7 times 11 times 13$.
      – Ethan Bolker
      2 days ago










    • Interesting methods, but are they really feasible to perform if someone would ask you ''what's $ab*cd$", and you would have to compute it without them repeating the answer? Ofcourse when writing down a problem on paper it becomes much easier to see patters or simplifications on the problem but this becomes much more difficult when making notes isn't allowed. Anyway, thank you for your methods!
      – S. Crim
      yesterday










    • Absolutely this is feasible if you practice. I would think of the factor $1+0.05$ as $+5%$. As I said, I have done more digits than $2 times 2$.
      – Ross Millikan
      yesterday


















    • +1 for $7 times 11 times 13$.
      – Ethan Bolker
      2 days ago










    • Interesting methods, but are they really feasible to perform if someone would ask you ''what's $ab*cd$", and you would have to compute it without them repeating the answer? Ofcourse when writing down a problem on paper it becomes much easier to see patters or simplifications on the problem but this becomes much more difficult when making notes isn't allowed. Anyway, thank you for your methods!
      – S. Crim
      yesterday










    • Absolutely this is feasible if you practice. I would think of the factor $1+0.05$ as $+5%$. As I said, I have done more digits than $2 times 2$.
      – Ross Millikan
      yesterday
















    +1 for $7 times 11 times 13$.
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 days ago




    +1 for $7 times 11 times 13$.
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 days ago












    Interesting methods, but are they really feasible to perform if someone would ask you ''what's $ab*cd$", and you would have to compute it without them repeating the answer? Ofcourse when writing down a problem on paper it becomes much easier to see patters or simplifications on the problem but this becomes much more difficult when making notes isn't allowed. Anyway, thank you for your methods!
    – S. Crim
    yesterday




    Interesting methods, but are they really feasible to perform if someone would ask you ''what's $ab*cd$", and you would have to compute it without them repeating the answer? Ofcourse when writing down a problem on paper it becomes much easier to see patters or simplifications on the problem but this becomes much more difficult when making notes isn't allowed. Anyway, thank you for your methods!
    – S. Crim
    yesterday












    Absolutely this is feasible if you practice. I would think of the factor $1+0.05$ as $+5%$. As I said, I have done more digits than $2 times 2$.
    – Ross Millikan
    yesterday




    Absolutely this is feasible if you practice. I would think of the factor $1+0.05$ as $+5%$. As I said, I have done more digits than $2 times 2$.
    – Ross Millikan
    yesterday










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    I am hoping that an example will be enough to show the general pattern. With practice, this is very doable.



    If your memory is good, you can multiply a two-digit number times a two-digit number in your head. for example, to do



    $$begin{array}{r} 56 \ times 78 \ hline end{array}$$



    in your head.



    $6 times 8$ is $48$. Place the $8$ and remember the $4$.



    $$begin{array}{r}
    color{red} 4 phantom{0} \
    56 \
    times 78 \ hline
    8 end{array}
    $$



    $5times 8 + 7times 6 + 4 = 40 + 42 + 4 = 86$ Place the $6$ and remember the $8$.



    $$begin{array}{r}
    color{red}{84} phantom{0} \
    56 \
    times 78 \ hline
    68 end{array}
    $$



    Finally, $5 times 7 + 8 = 35 + 8 = 43$. Place the $43$.



    $$begin{array}{r}
    color{red}{84} phantom{0} \
    56 \
    times 78 \ hline
    4368 end{array}
    $$





    If two digits in a row or column are the same, you can take a shortcut. For example, to multiply $63 times 88$.



    $$begin{array}{r} 63 \
    times 88 \
    hline end{array}
    $$



    $3 times 8 = 24$. Place the $4$ and remember the $2$.



    $$begin{array}{r} color{red}2 phantom 0 \
    63 \
    times 88 \
    hline
    4
    end{array}
    $$



    $(6 + 3) times 8 + color{red} 2 = 74$. Place the $4$ and remember the $7$.



    $$begin{array}{r} color{red}{72} phantom 0 \
    63 \
    times 88 \
    hline
    44
    end{array}
    $$



    $6 times 8 + color{red} 7 = 55$. Place the $55$.



    $$begin{array}{r} color{red}{72} phantom 0 \
    63 \
    times 88 \
    hline
    5544
    end{array}
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Yeah, this is exactly the second method I described. Perhaps I was too vague with describing it though! My problem with this method is that, when you are not allowed to write things down on paper, you have to remember the digits you already placed while doing new calculations. Often times I wil have forgotten my last placed digit when I arrive at the final multiplication, unless I repeat my first step really quickly halfway through. This is exactly where I make ''useless'' mental steps. This problem most likely comes from too little experience on my part though.
      – S. Crim
      yesterday















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    I am hoping that an example will be enough to show the general pattern. With practice, this is very doable.



    If your memory is good, you can multiply a two-digit number times a two-digit number in your head. for example, to do



    $$begin{array}{r} 56 \ times 78 \ hline end{array}$$



    in your head.



    $6 times 8$ is $48$. Place the $8$ and remember the $4$.



    $$begin{array}{r}
    color{red} 4 phantom{0} \
    56 \
    times 78 \ hline
    8 end{array}
    $$



    $5times 8 + 7times 6 + 4 = 40 + 42 + 4 = 86$ Place the $6$ and remember the $8$.



    $$begin{array}{r}
    color{red}{84} phantom{0} \
    56 \
    times 78 \ hline
    68 end{array}
    $$



    Finally, $5 times 7 + 8 = 35 + 8 = 43$. Place the $43$.



    $$begin{array}{r}
    color{red}{84} phantom{0} \
    56 \
    times 78 \ hline
    4368 end{array}
    $$





    If two digits in a row or column are the same, you can take a shortcut. For example, to multiply $63 times 88$.



    $$begin{array}{r} 63 \
    times 88 \
    hline end{array}
    $$



    $3 times 8 = 24$. Place the $4$ and remember the $2$.



    $$begin{array}{r} color{red}2 phantom 0 \
    63 \
    times 88 \
    hline
    4
    end{array}
    $$



    $(6 + 3) times 8 + color{red} 2 = 74$. Place the $4$ and remember the $7$.



    $$begin{array}{r} color{red}{72} phantom 0 \
    63 \
    times 88 \
    hline
    44
    end{array}
    $$



    $6 times 8 + color{red} 7 = 55$. Place the $55$.



    $$begin{array}{r} color{red}{72} phantom 0 \
    63 \
    times 88 \
    hline
    5544
    end{array}
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Yeah, this is exactly the second method I described. Perhaps I was too vague with describing it though! My problem with this method is that, when you are not allowed to write things down on paper, you have to remember the digits you already placed while doing new calculations. Often times I wil have forgotten my last placed digit when I arrive at the final multiplication, unless I repeat my first step really quickly halfway through. This is exactly where I make ''useless'' mental steps. This problem most likely comes from too little experience on my part though.
      – S. Crim
      yesterday













    up vote
    1
    down vote










    up vote
    1
    down vote









    I am hoping that an example will be enough to show the general pattern. With practice, this is very doable.



    If your memory is good, you can multiply a two-digit number times a two-digit number in your head. for example, to do



    $$begin{array}{r} 56 \ times 78 \ hline end{array}$$



    in your head.



    $6 times 8$ is $48$. Place the $8$ and remember the $4$.



    $$begin{array}{r}
    color{red} 4 phantom{0} \
    56 \
    times 78 \ hline
    8 end{array}
    $$



    $5times 8 + 7times 6 + 4 = 40 + 42 + 4 = 86$ Place the $6$ and remember the $8$.



    $$begin{array}{r}
    color{red}{84} phantom{0} \
    56 \
    times 78 \ hline
    68 end{array}
    $$



    Finally, $5 times 7 + 8 = 35 + 8 = 43$. Place the $43$.



    $$begin{array}{r}
    color{red}{84} phantom{0} \
    56 \
    times 78 \ hline
    4368 end{array}
    $$





    If two digits in a row or column are the same, you can take a shortcut. For example, to multiply $63 times 88$.



    $$begin{array}{r} 63 \
    times 88 \
    hline end{array}
    $$



    $3 times 8 = 24$. Place the $4$ and remember the $2$.



    $$begin{array}{r} color{red}2 phantom 0 \
    63 \
    times 88 \
    hline
    4
    end{array}
    $$



    $(6 + 3) times 8 + color{red} 2 = 74$. Place the $4$ and remember the $7$.



    $$begin{array}{r} color{red}{72} phantom 0 \
    63 \
    times 88 \
    hline
    44
    end{array}
    $$



    $6 times 8 + color{red} 7 = 55$. Place the $55$.



    $$begin{array}{r} color{red}{72} phantom 0 \
    63 \
    times 88 \
    hline
    5544
    end{array}
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer












    I am hoping that an example will be enough to show the general pattern. With practice, this is very doable.



    If your memory is good, you can multiply a two-digit number times a two-digit number in your head. for example, to do



    $$begin{array}{r} 56 \ times 78 \ hline end{array}$$



    in your head.



    $6 times 8$ is $48$. Place the $8$ and remember the $4$.



    $$begin{array}{r}
    color{red} 4 phantom{0} \
    56 \
    times 78 \ hline
    8 end{array}
    $$



    $5times 8 + 7times 6 + 4 = 40 + 42 + 4 = 86$ Place the $6$ and remember the $8$.



    $$begin{array}{r}
    color{red}{84} phantom{0} \
    56 \
    times 78 \ hline
    68 end{array}
    $$



    Finally, $5 times 7 + 8 = 35 + 8 = 43$. Place the $43$.



    $$begin{array}{r}
    color{red}{84} phantom{0} \
    56 \
    times 78 \ hline
    4368 end{array}
    $$





    If two digits in a row or column are the same, you can take a shortcut. For example, to multiply $63 times 88$.



    $$begin{array}{r} 63 \
    times 88 \
    hline end{array}
    $$



    $3 times 8 = 24$. Place the $4$ and remember the $2$.



    $$begin{array}{r} color{red}2 phantom 0 \
    63 \
    times 88 \
    hline
    4
    end{array}
    $$



    $(6 + 3) times 8 + color{red} 2 = 74$. Place the $4$ and remember the $7$.



    $$begin{array}{r} color{red}{72} phantom 0 \
    63 \
    times 88 \
    hline
    44
    end{array}
    $$



    $6 times 8 + color{red} 7 = 55$. Place the $55$.



    $$begin{array}{r} color{red}{72} phantom 0 \
    63 \
    times 88 \
    hline
    5544
    end{array}
    $$







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    steven gregory

    17.1k22155




    17.1k22155












    • Yeah, this is exactly the second method I described. Perhaps I was too vague with describing it though! My problem with this method is that, when you are not allowed to write things down on paper, you have to remember the digits you already placed while doing new calculations. Often times I wil have forgotten my last placed digit when I arrive at the final multiplication, unless I repeat my first step really quickly halfway through. This is exactly where I make ''useless'' mental steps. This problem most likely comes from too little experience on my part though.
      – S. Crim
      yesterday


















    • Yeah, this is exactly the second method I described. Perhaps I was too vague with describing it though! My problem with this method is that, when you are not allowed to write things down on paper, you have to remember the digits you already placed while doing new calculations. Often times I wil have forgotten my last placed digit when I arrive at the final multiplication, unless I repeat my first step really quickly halfway through. This is exactly where I make ''useless'' mental steps. This problem most likely comes from too little experience on my part though.
      – S. Crim
      yesterday
















    Yeah, this is exactly the second method I described. Perhaps I was too vague with describing it though! My problem with this method is that, when you are not allowed to write things down on paper, you have to remember the digits you already placed while doing new calculations. Often times I wil have forgotten my last placed digit when I arrive at the final multiplication, unless I repeat my first step really quickly halfway through. This is exactly where I make ''useless'' mental steps. This problem most likely comes from too little experience on my part though.
    – S. Crim
    yesterday




    Yeah, this is exactly the second method I described. Perhaps I was too vague with describing it though! My problem with this method is that, when you are not allowed to write things down on paper, you have to remember the digits you already placed while doing new calculations. Often times I wil have forgotten my last placed digit when I arrive at the final multiplication, unless I repeat my first step really quickly halfway through. This is exactly where I make ''useless'' mental steps. This problem most likely comes from too little experience on my part though.
    – S. Crim
    yesterday










    up vote
    0
    down vote













    To answer this question you must make a very large number of assumptions, few of which are testable. For instance, it is conceivable that mnemonists can remember the entire multiplication table. Alternatively, often the first step is somehow classifying the problem (even times even, or sum of digits dividable by 3, etc.) and it is extremely difficult to know how many steps are being used. Moreover, some problems are "trivial" ($20 times 20$ or $10 times x$ for any $x$) and you won't perform them using one of the proposed tricky techniques. As such, will you quantify the "expected" number of operations?






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      To answer this question you must make a very large number of assumptions, few of which are testable. For instance, it is conceivable that mnemonists can remember the entire multiplication table. Alternatively, often the first step is somehow classifying the problem (even times even, or sum of digits dividable by 3, etc.) and it is extremely difficult to know how many steps are being used. Moreover, some problems are "trivial" ($20 times 20$ or $10 times x$ for any $x$) and you won't perform them using one of the proposed tricky techniques. As such, will you quantify the "expected" number of operations?






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        To answer this question you must make a very large number of assumptions, few of which are testable. For instance, it is conceivable that mnemonists can remember the entire multiplication table. Alternatively, often the first step is somehow classifying the problem (even times even, or sum of digits dividable by 3, etc.) and it is extremely difficult to know how many steps are being used. Moreover, some problems are "trivial" ($20 times 20$ or $10 times x$ for any $x$) and you won't perform them using one of the proposed tricky techniques. As such, will you quantify the "expected" number of operations?






        share|cite|improve this answer












        To answer this question you must make a very large number of assumptions, few of which are testable. For instance, it is conceivable that mnemonists can remember the entire multiplication table. Alternatively, often the first step is somehow classifying the problem (even times even, or sum of digits dividable by 3, etc.) and it is extremely difficult to know how many steps are being used. Moreover, some problems are "trivial" ($20 times 20$ or $10 times x$ for any $x$) and you won't perform them using one of the proposed tricky techniques. As such, will you quantify the "expected" number of operations?







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        David G. Stork

        8,80921232




        8,80921232






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2995273%2fwhat-method-for-mentally-computing-2-digit-multiplication-problems-minimizes-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest




















































































            Popular posts from this blog

            Aardman Animations

            Are they similar matrix

            “minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis