Search Tags:

Categories:

New Math Multiplication Method



Uploaded by: rockyfp
Video Description:
Use this for any two number multiplication


Tags for this video: maths

Find more videos in the "Howto" category
See more videos uploaded by rockyfp

Related Videos
Simply Outrageous Math IntroNew MathMath Genius
simply-outrageous-math-intro.htmlsimply-outrageous-math-intro.htmlsimply-outrageous-math-intro.html
Vedic Math Digit Sums CheckThe Old New MathMath Education: An Inconvenient Truth
simply-outrageous-math-intro.htmlsimply-outrageous-math-intro.htmlsimply-outrageous-math-intro.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
does this only work ... ( 1 year ago by CueCue)
does this only work if the last number of the first set, is the first number of the second set? (Like, 21 x 13) because i tried 21 x 31, and that didn't work. Perhaps i did something wrong?
So many critics of ... ( 1 year ago by babycody1)
So many critics of a neat "trick". Reminds me of the multiplication by 9s trick. I was wondering how you would use this for numbers with zeros? i.e. 101x101 You can't draw a zero. Oh and yes it does work for 21x31. You have to pay attention to how the lines get grouped. Left then center then right.
xD WOW THATS niiceee ( 1 year ago by koolkleankat)
xD WOW THATS niiceee
its originally ... ( 1 year ago by denito9474)
its originally looks a lot more radical than it is. But it still has to be essentially the same process otherwise it would not give the same answer. What's cool is that is a different way of conceptualising such a simple old concept as multiplication. Which is where lots of maths brerakthroughs are made. cartesian plane for example.
Thats the Indian ... ( 1 year ago by Dariusdagr8)
Thats the Indian kerala school of doing maths :) Mallus are bloody smart buggers.
What if it was a 2 ... ( 1 year ago by Chris0825)
What if it was a 2 instead of a 1 there. Would you still add the 2 over? or can it only work for number one?
Oo by the way, I ... ( 1 year ago by Chris0825)
Oo by the way, I just tried it. It would only work for some equations, it doesn't work for all of them.
... ( 1 year ago by Drgon90)
cooooooooooooooooooooooool
see how a hot chick ... ( 1 year ago by ydhdrjrhucwx)
see how a hot chick loses a bet and has to strip in front of her classmates (_stripAss.com_)
babycody1 - u don't ... ( 1 year ago by K0y0t33)
babycody1 - u don't have to use 0, but break them up like this: 10 1 and 10 1, line them out, count and you get 10201.
oO' ( 1 year ago by lixyed)
oO'
thanks ROCKYFP !!! ... ( 1 year ago by jeanotho)
thanks ROCKYFP !!! GOD BLESS YOU SO MUCH !!!
sweet! ( 1 year ago by TuRk1y3)
sweet!
what if the number ... ( 1 year ago by wooshmeepfook)
what if the number of digits aren't equal? ex. 21x221 or if you add 0? and what if you're trying to solve 10869 x 5 ? (I figured it out btw)
Fukin nerd ( 8 months ago by dizzee14)
Fukin nerd
Array ( 6 months ago by nickhead2)
thats cute.
It's really simple, you just break up the digits of each number
Why no examples ... ( 6 months ago by ambruno1132)
Why no examples with digits of 6 or more? Makes the math teacher in my suspicious.
lol way overcomplex ... ( 5 months ago by nightgamer360)
lol way overcomplex guy simply break down the 2nd number rounding off each place value and add the results 21x10=210 21x3=63 21+210=273 21x13=273
why this works so ... ( 5 months ago by nightgamer360)
why this works so great is the bigger the diggit number the less adding operations (less caryovers). round off each place value another larger example 832x324=269568 832x300=249600 832x20=16640 832x4=3328 249600+16640+3328=269568
LOL some art class ... ( 4 months ago by ldotinnocent)
LOL some art class in a maths exam
wat the fuck i dont ... ( 2 months ago by Barttoocool)
wat the fuck i dont get that
Great! It only took ... ( 2 months ago by ronmc2)
Great! It only took him 40 seconds to do the first problem & 1:30 to do the second problem. The old method took me 15 seconds & 30 seconds, respectively, to do the same math problems. Our tax dollars hard at work, to fix something that wasn't broken.
it tried it on ... ( 1 month ago by pacoboy91)
it tried it on bigger numbers and it works.its simple its just what you do when you multiply larger numbers by hand. but it looks cool if you can beat someone doing by hand on larger numbers
This is retarded. ... ( 2 weeks ago by VedgeNeWi)
This is retarded. Not exercising any actual mathematical skill. The user should be exercising their brain, using basic multiplication they should know, not relying on a picture to show the answer. Though it is a clever way to find a solution, it's far from easier, and does not make anyone smarter. FAIL



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code