• lime!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    i don’t know about that, i would prefer to build an intuition. i know people who simply have the entire thing memorized and “look up” the answer when prompted. which of course completely breaks down if you introduce an operand higher than 12.

    • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 hours ago

      You need both. Take 1718. Your understanding of multiplication should tell you that this equals 1010+107+108+8*7. Now your rote learning will allow you to calculate this quickly as 100+70+80+56=306.

      • lime!
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        24 hours ago

        you’ll need to escape the asterisks: \*

        and no, my rote learning has not prepared me for that. nothing like that was ever presented to me. i went from multiplication tables to factorisation and never mentally connected the two. as a result i can’t do factorisation in my head at all, despite doing 80% of a master’s in engineering.

        • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Yeah your education failed you. What I am effectively doing is “factoring” 17*18 into (10+7)(10+8), before working out the parentheses, but it’s easier because you only work with numbers and not with x’s. A nice in-between step towards algebra.

          • lime!
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            yeah that’s what’s so interesting. like obviously i can see the steps with actual numbers but replace with unknowns and it’s 50-50 whether i would be able to do it. and since i work with optimisations every day, i have had to reconstruct this stuff from first principles without a theoretical understanding so i need to go the long way around every time.