Galactic Mathematics

[Pin dÁr]

I really think that 'conventional' mathematics is obsolete,

It is a stupid, awkward, retarded and backward system.

Galacatic or Vedic Mathematics on the other hand is elegant, consistent, beautifull, extremely fast etc.

But what is Galactic or Vedic Mathematics (VM)?

It is a mathematical system based on verses or sutra's ,

A small example:

In VM one calculates 35 x 35 very very fast by using the sutra:

"One more then the one before" also called: "'ekadhikena purvena'"


Her it goes:

35 x 35=?

Take the '3' (this is the one before), add 1 (one more) =4 and the calculate (by) (3x4=12)

Then put this '12' in front and end with '25"

35 x 35=1225


Another example:

75 x 75= (7x(7+1=8))| 25=5625 and voila!


Oh and yes, one can do arithematics, trigonometry, calculus and so on and so forth.

But one has to really DO IT, to appreciate it on a deep level.





Yes, conventional math is obsolete!

 

[cpwill]

Hm.

Can you show the process for this for 77 x 56 ?

 

[Pin dÁr]

Galactic or Vedic Mathematics uses 16 sutra's en 13 sub sutra's.

Here are the 16 sutra's

 

[Pin dÁr]

Hm.

Can you show the process for this for 77 x 56 ?

yes, but that goes just another way.

we can use base '50' and go from there, or another way, which I will now show:

7 7
5 6
____


first calculate (7x6)=42 put 2 and '4' over

7 7
5 6
____

2
4

Then calculate (7x5)+(7x6)=77
we had '4' over so 7+4=81 put '1'and '8' is over

7 7
5 6
----
12
8

Then calculate (7x5=35+8=43)


7 7
5 6
____
4312

Voila!

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Oh dear sweet god, math is already a big enough struggle for me with the occasional English letter added in, I would not be able to endure this ****.

 

[Pin dÁr]

In the above calculation of two numbers the sutra "Vertically and crosswise" is used:

 

[Pin dÁr]

Oh dear sweet god, math is already a big enough struggle for me with the occasional English letter added in, I would not be able to endure this ****.

The truth is, that this way of math is way easier and children just love it.

So, give it a try,

 

[Pin dÁr]

Children only need to go as far for multiplacation as the 'table of 5'. More is not necessary.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Another example.

Would someone calculate

34 x 11 the conventional way? and show how it is done.

Then I show the VM way,

 

[Fledermaus]

Another example.

Would someone calculate

34 x 11 the conventional way? and show how it is done.

Then I show the VM way,

34 x 10 = 340
34 x 1 = 34

340 + 34 = 374

 

[Pin dÁr]

34 x 10 = 340
34 x 1 = 34

340 + 34 = 374

ok thanks and this can even done faster by vedic math!

use the sutra: The digits of the sum:

34 x 11 =

get the '3' and the '4' more apart from each other, add 4+3=7 and put the '7' in the middle.

34 x 11 =

3 4

3+4=7

3 7 4

and voila!

3x4=374

you can do it in your head when writing the sum down!

 

[Fledermaus]

ok thanks and this can even done faster by vedic math!

use the sutra: The digits of the sum:

34 x 11 =

get the '3' and the '4' more apart from each other, add 4+3=7 and put the '7' in the middle.

34 x 11 =

3 4

3+4=7

3 7 4

and voila!

3x4=374

you can do it in your head when writing the sum down!

I did it in my head instantaneously.

 

[Pin dÁr]

I did it in my head instantaneously.

yeah ok, but you have to admit that the total amount of steps in VM are shorter, hence the change for errors is reduced.


anyway, now try this one:

56 x 54=?

 

[Absentglare]

You're just re-arranging ordinary arithmetic in obscure and arbitrary ways.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I don't get it but maybe...

How about 349 x 12.56 ?

 

[Pin dÁr]

You're just re-arranging ordinary arithmetic in obscure and arbitrary ways.

that's a strange posting. What is it that you don't uinderstand?

 

[Pin dÁr]

I don't get it but maybe...

How about 349 x 12.56 ?

What about it? And what is it that you don't get if I may ask?

 

[Absentglare]

that's a strange posting. What is it that you don't uinderstand?

I understood #11 just fine. You did the exact same operations as required to compute 340 + 34 which is the last step in the ordinary multiplication of 34 * 11.

 

[Pin dÁr]

I understood #11 just fine. You did the exact same operations as required to compute 340 + 34 which is the last step in the ordinary multiplication of 34 * 11.

no, i did a short cut. I only added 3 and 4 and that was all, Nothing else.

 

[Absentglare]

no, i did a short cut. I only added 3 and 4 and that was all, Nothing else.

You also had to consult an extraneous rule set to hand-feed the formula of surrounding (3 + 4) with '3' on the left and '4' on the right to make 374.

 

[Pin dÁr]

You also had to consult an extraneous rule set to hand-feed the formula of surrounding (3 + 4) with '3' on the left and '4' on the right to make 374.

what exactly do you man here?

And can you calculate:

56 x 54=?

 

[Pin dÁr]

Another one:

How to calculate 995 x 996 very very fast!

use 1000 as your 'base" then 995 has a difference of '5' to 1000 and 996 has a difference of 4, right?

Then as follows:

995 -5
996 -4
_____

Then multiply (-5 x -4)= 20

Then calculate 995-4=991 OR 996-5=991

Then put them like this:

991 | 20

Now we have to put a '0' in front tof the '20' (because our base=1000)

then we have

991 | 020



995 x 996=991020


voila, it is that easy!


If you don't have to write it down, it can be done in 5 seconds or less.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

I saw these techniques used in an old math book I found in a used bookstore in London called "Mathematics For Engineers"...published in 1885.

Fascinating stuff.

 

[Pin dÁr]

I saw these techniques used in an old math book I found in a used bookstore in London called "Mathematics For Engineers"...published in 1885.

Fascinating stuff.

yes, it is fascinating. Can you give me the name/isbn of the book?

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

yes, it is fascinating. Can you give me the name/isbn of the book?

I already gave you the name of the book. Didn't you read my post?

It has no ISBN since it was published in England in 1885.