Hello Veeky Forums

Thank you. You are good men/women.

Yes, but I skipped math and went straight to an alt univ. where they only use magic

I have a question for you. You're going to think of me as idiotic perhaps but I don't care. When you do calculation in your head. Do you just memorize answers or literally calculate by adding and things of that nature. Like how would you approach 25 x 30 in your head?

So what was your score on brainexers addition?
Assuming you tried one session out.

1.25*3
2.75*10
3.750

Am I supposed to finish the whole thing or tell you after one try

Do it until that blue bar / time runs out.

Everyone has their own tricks for multiplication and division. Since one of your numbers (30) is divisible by 10, I'd simply do:
3 x (10x25)

See today I realized there is some creativity in calculation. That you can customize your route to an objective result. I never thought of it like this before. I always thought it had to a static linear process. But then I would get to significant uphill battles with no adaption.

How would you do, 67 x 48 or is that too much for in head calculation?

326 lol that's shit eh

>(4 * 8) + (60 * 40)
Im just a retard plasterer, how did you become so bad at mental maths?

Hahahahaha wut
Idk man I've gotten by on mostly just like doing the basics in my head. I have no problem using a calculator if I needed to. If I have to do something in my head it may take a minute, whereas there are certain things I can do in my head much faster. I can solve quadratic equations with two real roots (just small integers) near instantly just by looking at the numbers and seeing which numbers could be squared and added or subtracted to get the polynomial.

67×48 is indeed slightly too tedious to bother doing in your head without tricks, even though other two two digit numbers would be much easier. Sometimes you can round up or down a little and then subtract the difference. I don't really consider this to be a trick. Depending on the context if it isn't particularly important to be exact I'd tell someone it was around 3210 as 50 x 70 = 3500 and you'd have around 290 to subtract from that (50 x (70-67) + 70 x (50-48)

I could just add up the four different parts you'd get by doing it on paper, but you have to basically hold all those numbers in your head as you're doing it and also not forget where you were in the middle

One thing that's really easy to do in your head is long division of smaller numbers. All you have to do is remember the remainder and the original number and you can just say it as you're calculating. 48/7=6.857142857142. 82/9=9.1111

67
48
__
536 dont forget this #
2680 recall the # when u get this 1
____
3216

wut r u brainlet

I'll remember this man. I owe you one. You're my boy blue.

Calculation is matter of RAM. The volume of numbers and the speed at which you compute is in no way indicative of abstract thinking. How well you understand and implement formulas and estimations is much more remarkable. Calculation on its own is a party trick.

>Like how would you approach 25 x 30 in your head?
I always look for a pattern.

One multiplicand ends in zero? Drop it off and multiply by 10 at the end.

Is a multiplicand close to a round number, like 49 * 50? Round up ( 50 x 50 = 2500) and then subtract down at the end (2500 - 50 = 2450).

Only if all the numbers are without clear patterns do I slog it out digit by digit.

Thats dogshit result, yes.
Above 2000 as an average of at least 10 sessions or dont bother trying to study higher mathematics.

Another easy method:
(67 * 50) - (67 * 2) = 3126

Ehm 3216* whoops mental typpo

That's an interesting deduction.
dyslexicadvantage.org/dyscalculia-in-an-award-winning-mathematician/

We do not know her complete profile so to speak.
It would be safe to say that she is an exception, or that what you are showing is what a minority of people can do, and not what an average person could.
Do you disagree?

True, but absolute statements like yours show a weird understanding of high math

>First try I got 850
fark

How about this then:
Most kids that had an easy time transitioning from arithmetics to geometry/algebra in elementary/middle school could easily score around 1500 on that task, so is it really weird to expect a relative adult(18+ board) to score a little bit higher, above 2000, if he/she wants to attempt to do higher mathematics?

But it's not a matter of math capability, that test involves speed, so it shows your concentration and perseverance, it's simple addition man, not a huge deal, but I'll work on it, I zone out quick

Why did you do that, where do you get 4*8 my dood?

Wow this SPEAKS to me. Thank you man. I've felt similar to those growing up. Do regular doctors diagnose people with this or do they have to see a specialist?

This

I honestly don't know if I gave you the right metric, isn't really sure how this game works, I kind of get bored and stop, like my last one was 500 and I slowly go up the more I concentrate but I get bored extremely fast

Veeky Forums-science.wikia.com/wiki/Math_Textbook_Recommendations#Preschool_.28Arithmetic.29

"soon, I will be in a position to understand how three numbers may be added in general. The trouble is to abstract the procedure a bit and... PAW PATROL!!! PAW PATROL IS ON! :DDD"

No idea, a diagnosis wouldn't have been of any use to you anyway because
> pfff he's just stupid

Sad reality man

This is stupid. Higher maths is all calculator work.

Different user here. That's why I always thought calculation in head or speed is stupid since calculators exist. The only thing which is crucial is the order of operations which is where the abstract thinking applies.