• tehmics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I would have done 10+6, but that’s effectively the same thing as the OP.

    Aside from literally counting, what other way is there to arrive at 16? You either memorize it, batch the numbers into something else you have memorized, or you count.

    Am I missing some obvious ‘natural’ way?

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      For my kids, apparently some kind of number line nonsense, which is counting with extra steps.

      I just memorize it. When the numbers get big, I do it like you did. For example, my kid and I were converting miles to feet (bad idea) in the car, and I needed to calculate 2/3 mile to feet. So I took 1760 yards -> 1800 yards, divided by three (600), doubled it (1200), and multiplied by 3 to get feet (3600). Then I handled the 40, but did yards -> feet -> 2/3 (40 yards -> 120 ft -> 80 ft). So the final answer is 3520 ft (3600 - 80). I know the factors of 18, and I know what 2/3 of 12 is, so I was able to do it quickly in my head, despite the imperial system’s best efforts.

      So yeah, cleaning up the numbers to make the calculation easier is absolutely the way to go.

      • stingpie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 minutes ago

        A mile is 1760 yards, and there are three feet in a yard. Therefore, 1760 feet is 1/3 of a mile, and 2/3s of a mile is 3520 feet.

        The imperial system is actually excellent for division and multiplication. All units are very composite, so you usually don’t need to worry about decimals.

      • tehmics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        As in, visualizing a number line in their heads? Or physically drawing one out?

        I could see a visual method being very powerful if it deals in scale. Can you elaborate on that? Or, like try to understand what your kids’ ‘nonsense’ is?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          I think my 7yo visualizes the number line in their head when there’s no paper around, but they draw it out in school. I personally don’t understand that method, because I always learned to do it like this:

           7372
          + 273
          =====
          

          And add by columns. With a number line you add by places, so left to right (starting at 7372, jump 2 hundreds, 7 tens, and 3 ones), whereas with the above method, you’d go right to left, carrying as you go. The number line method gets you close to the number faster (so decent for mental estimates), but it requires counting at the end. The column method is harder for mental math, but it’s a lot closer to multiplication, so it’s good to get practice (IMO) with keeping intermediate calculations in your head.

          I think it’s nonsense because it doesn’t scale to other types of math very well.

          • tehmics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 minutes ago

            You still haven’t told me what the number line method actually is. I know how to add up the columns bud

    • Toofpic@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I’m also in 10+6 gang, and it’s more universal, as in a decimal system you will always have a 10 or 100 to add up to, and a “pretty” 8+8 is less usual

    • Floey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I’d argue memorizing it is the natural way, at least if you work with numbers a lot. Think about how a typist can type a seven letter word faster than a string of seven random characters. Is that not good proof that we have pathways in our brain that short circuit simpler procedural steps?

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Theres more complicated ways for sure, but I think we have identified all the simple ones. Could break it into twos I guess.