Same as that trick of multiplying by 9 where the digits add up to 9 or 18 or 27 and so on at very high digits like 9x65802= 592,218... 5+2+9+2+1+8=27=9*3
That phenomenon for 9 will show up in any base for the digit proceed '10', like seven for Octal or 15 for Hexadecimal. It's really no different then multiplying by 5 and always getting the last digit to be 5 or 0, in base 16 any multiple of 8 ends in 8 or 0.
What's going on here is that you can think of 11 more as 10+1, essentially the result of Y x 11 is really 10Y + Y, or Y with a zero following plus itself. If you tihnk of that two digit number as AB then the classic add up way will be:
AB0
+ AB
A(A+B)B
where you just have carry a 1 onto the first A if A+B>9 and this would hold true in other bases besides base 10, with their equivalent of 11, the number one higher than the Base, same as the 9 trick will hold for numbers one less than the Base. For instance in Octal (Base 8 ) 9 is written as 11, and 9x13=54 is written as 11x15=165 ---> A(A+B)B ---> 1 (1+5) 5
There's also a tricks for 6, 6 x Y always ends in Y for any even Y (6 x 8 = 48, 6x 4 =24) and that will carry over into any even-number base system when working with the digit one higher than the halfway point (5 for base 10) as it's just carrying one extra off to x5 (or midpoint of the base) a number of times equal to that number. 6 times any odd number actually just adds that odd number to 5 for the last digit, 6x3= 18 or 15+3, etc.
Edit: seriously we've got to get rid of that 8) makes drives me nuts
That phenomenon for 9 will show up in any base for the digit proceed '10', like seven for Octal or 15 for Hexadecimal. It's really no different then multiplying by 5 and always getting the last digit to be 5 or 0, in base 16 any multiple of 8 ends in 8 or 0.
What's going on here is that you can think of 11 more as 10+1, essentially the result of Y x 11 is really 10Y + Y, or Y with a zero following plus itself. If you tihnk of that two digit number as AB then the classic add up way will be:
AB0
+ AB
A(A+B)B
where you just have carry a 1 onto the first A if A+B>9 and this would hold true in other bases besides base 10, with their equivalent of 11, the number one higher than the Base, same as the 9 trick will hold for numbers one less than the Base. For instance in Octal (Base 8 ) 9 is written as 11, and 9x13=54 is written as 11x15=165 ---> A(A+B)B ---> 1 (1+5) 5
There's also a tricks for 6, 6 x Y always ends in Y for any even Y (6 x 8 = 48, 6x 4 =24) and that will carry over into any even-number base system when working with the digit one higher than the halfway point (5 for base 10) as it's just carrying one extra off to x5 (or midpoint of the base) a number of times equal to that number. 6 times any odd number actually just adds that odd number to 5 for the last digit, 6x3= 18 or 15+3, etc.
Edit: seriously we've got to get rid of that 8) makes drives me nuts
If it helps I sympathize. You are right, of course, and saved me a response that would have somehow managed to be longer yet less exact and accurate; well done. If you keep trying to tell people to simplify operations by treating them as algebra though you will likely end up hung in the public square (despite still being right.)
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Does anybody know this math trick?
29/02/2012 07:29:58 PM
- 756 Views
Sure, it's an artifact of base 10
29/02/2012 08:24:18 PM
- 550 Views
Your own fault for doing lots of math.
29/02/2012 08:37:39 PM
- 616 Views
More my fault for having a algebra textbook that obsessed with abnormal base calculations
29/02/2012 09:19:15 PM
- 609 Views
Your method for 11 might be even quicker!
29/02/2012 08:46:44 PM
- 441 Views
That is wayyyyy more complicated than 10x+x. But if it works for you, I am happy. *NM*
01/03/2012 07:16:40 AM
- 198 Views
Not really
01/03/2012 04:24:20 PM
- 404 Views