Talk:Multiplication table

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Multiplication table article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Template

Just here to say that I have copied this template from Spanish Wikipedia before reading this talk page and knowing that you English-American people memorize the tables up to 12. Still, it could be expanded as needed and put in the article, I guess.--Federico1984 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop at the tens

Teaching the times tables past the tens is a waste of time, and mat actually hamper a child's grasp of multiplication. Un school 11:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplication facts

Can someone mention/explain this term "multiplication facts" in the article ? It is a very common term in education and as a non-english speaker it confused me, yet I found nowhere a definition of it. --Wolfgang-gerlach (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern section violate my copyright

User blocked for legal threats, and not being here to build an encyclopedia. This section should've been hatted a few months ago now. theinstantmatrix (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This author cannot publish something from others' published without authorization. From history, the multiplication table is invented 2700 years ago. In 2006, I found my daughter has gift on drawing rather than math. So, I spent first 2 years to make the chart as below. Then, it was not so clear if we don't have zero for 9x9 table. Another 5 years spent and more than 100 children taught to come out 9x10 charts. So, it can be applied by children after they learned the 1st 2's & 4's chart. I've issued the copyright and also IPs which costs me more than 6,000 dollars and create the tutor tool for children which's price is $10. I don't know whether if the author comes out this by his/her own, or not. But, even that, I'm sorry your outcome is late. You cannot create a wheel today and say wheels is you created or publish a Picasso's paint without even asking. I am happy to sell my education tool to British or everywhere in the world through various kind of channels (as we give 50% of price as the commission). We live in a very small apartment (<600 sqft) in Taiwan, and I wish can collect enough money to support my family and this invention is my only hope which spent us 10 years efforts. Please stand on my side to think again. Thanks. This is our private assets, not yours. Thanks. You can reference the patent at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20150064667.pdf.

The teen's logic (eg. 3x13) is also described in our patent filed in China 3 years ago. That is, no any new invention from this author and I insist ask to remove this content. Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson tan at work (talk • contribs) 13:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern has been on this article since 2004 and was updated graphic-wise in 2015 so the whole "This is my work" is laughable at best, Millions of people have probably came up with this pattern and chances are whoever originally added it to the article probably came up with it themselves anyway ... obviously we cannot ask because we're not in 2002/2003/2004 and chances are that person is no longer on this website ..... –Davey2010^Talk 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 1978, I already knew some pattern when learning multiplication table, such as, "24680" or "987654321" for <10 digit (I knew 2 digits multiplication at age 6, my father was a Math teacher in high school). It is just a part of the puzzle. Although I felt it was fun and could remember it in 1 or 2 days while playing toys, I still have to remember it as others.

My first version of this invention came out in 2007 when I worked in Seagull Scientific. It is okay to use 2008's version in the wiki page as it does not "group" the "carrier" correctly as well as I did not file the patent that time. I have issues for the 2017's picture which is very similar as our IP in 2014. The invention, however is the complete solution for the puzzle, it makes children no need to remember any multiplication statements in the times table. We've used transformed 1st circle to indicate the total carriers (as 2017's picture marked the 1st digit differently), and then ask children to find the 3 group of lines with sum up as total carriers (so, straight line is different than curve line). The 2nd rule is it always carries when hit zero. With this 2 rules, they can not only remember the <10 digit from the shift position, but also count the teen numbers. So, children do not need to remember any other complex rules to come out the result.

As outcome, in practice, I've taught adult remembering them (6 pictures and 2 rules) in 10 minutes and children in 30 minutes; which was a year of child time in school (1440 times faster than prior, and just cost $10 much cheaper than any other education kit). I've even tried on few ADHD kids, but not enough practices to ensure the efficiency and quality.

In short, if you use the content as what in 2008, I don't have problem (which just a partial solution of the puzzle). But, the picture in 2017 or 2015 is the issue. Again, the content of 2008 or whatever earlier cannot protect your post the 2017's picture still. Thanks.

PS: 1. In the 1st version of 2007, I already marked straight line and curve line differently. After learnt flash, I've written an animation of this in flash. The big difference in between the 2012's IP application is, we have 2 set of 24680 instead of one. So, the multiplicand is the same as total carry lines. You may say "you knew Fermat's principle when watch things above the water", but it is Fermat gave the formula which solve the problem entirely. Thanks.

2. As patent issue process, the 1st final result came out in 2014 and composed in 2012. The year 2015 is the patent open for public access, but it does not mean you can make a "copy" or publish as your own. Thanks.

Benson tan at work (talk)Benson Tan

I wonder if you appreciate the irony when you say "You cannot create a wheel today and say wheels is you created or publish a Picasso's paint without even asking" - when it has been pointed out that you did not necessarily create this method in the first place? And incidentally, much of Picasso's work is now in the public domain (at least in the US) so Yes - we could "publish a Picasso's paint without even asking".

Au Lapin Agile
Enjoy

Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check just few lines ahead of "Fermat's principle" which already solved your question (also bold the reason about why saying completely solve the problem). In addition, you have to learn something about copyright. Picasso is dead, not me. (As current international law, this copyright will alive after me & my daughter dead plus 50 years; the similar as what applied for Mickey Mouse or Holley Potter). Thanks.

I wasn't talking about you, but Picasso, so that's ok. The point is that you have yet to provide any real evidence that you "invented" this process or method, and I'm not even sure that you can patent a method of mathematics, despite your application. It seems more likely that you may have developed the theory yourself, but that does not make you the sole inventor - it seems just as likely that others had come up with it as well.

I suspect that English isn't your first language as there are more than a few issues with trying to decipher what you're actually saying, (Holley Potter?) but the end result is the same: We're not taking the image down. Moreover, if you keep trying to do so yourself you run the risk of a block for editwarring. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Chinese name is Yu-Cheng Tan which is the 2nd author in the patent (see above pdf). It seems like I have to spend another set of money to fight my right. It's so bad for IP system for poor people as us. How to ask my lawyer to contact you guys?

In addition, if the result is impact my right, I will ask your page hits multiply by $10 for each then. My daughter, who provided many feedback for me adjust the tool, also published this in her elementary school science competition in 2014 (after IP filed). Anyway, it's 2:35am in Taiwan, and yes English is not 1st language.

"it seems just as likely that others had come up with it as well" -- if this is the reason to publish my outcome, you need to provide evidence as well.

My patent is approved by US, Taiwan and China governments. Also, my copyright is issued in US. Therefore, before you say something or publish something, you can refer IP database to see if those were published by others. Further more, even so, it is not YOU can publish as well.

As copyright and IP tips, if you invented it, you have to issue an IP to protect your right. Unless you are the owner of an IP prior to my IP, you can not say it is you invented earlier including the file / page history (those are just reference, not legal document). For copyright is another story, people who writes something has the copyright by nature. But, you need to provide evidence (with "legal date") as "You" are the author. That is why we issued the copyright through lawyer. In addition, content is another important thing in copyright. You cannot copy a full sentence from others' published document. For picture, it is obviously could be determined (that is why we issue copyright as IP fee grows every year).

I don't know if you feel rude or not, I dislike you still publish the picture while we already have argus. Anyway, maybe you own wiki, it looks to me that you play as player and goalkeeper both roles, and it makes me feel unfair. I had lived in US for 7 years, some people are nice but some don't.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson tan at work (talk • contribs) 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked up the corresponding Patent Application, 14/016138 (file-date: September 2, 2013) at the US Patent Office, their portal shows the following result: Abandoned: Failure to Respond to an Office Action dated June 6, 2016. So, no US patent on this multiplication table exists. It would also seem to me that the possible US copyright would only possibly date to 2013 when the application was filed, in addition the public publishing of this table & its method dates to March 2015. If anything, after looking at the article and its talk page, it appears that WIkipedia's Commons CC-BY-SA licensing has perhaps been breached since a form of the table had already been present on WP's pages since 2004... Shearonink (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaheel Riens: you appear to have invested some emotional energy into keeping this section in place, but I can assure you that while it is technically correct, it is ~~low quality~~ original research and it is not worth the effort of trying to understand. I am going to replace it with more useful information, but someone else may well delete that information as well since it will look a bit sloppy and could be considered off topic to this article.

Alex Shih has blocked Benson tan at work. Benson: If you are still here reading this in spite of your block - if you want people to take you seriously, you are going to have express your thoughts more concisely. I did not bother to read much of what you said, and I suspect the same is true of the other people who have interacted with here. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 22:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've looked at it again, and it's more subtle than I than I thought. I'm not sure if its really worth keeping in the article, but I'm going to leave the article alone. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 22:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard method of multiplication, and has every place in the article. Frankly the OP's opinion that they invented it is ridiculous, and akin to Casio claiming that they invented Pi because if you press a button on an Fx77 it shows you the constant to 10 decimal places. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Einmaleins" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Einmaleins and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Einmaleins until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiplication by 6 to 10" and "Multiplication by 9" subsections of "Patterns in the tables"

I have removed these fairly recently added sections [1]. The techniques don't involve multiplication tables, let alone patterns in multiplication tables. Meters (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unuard?

What is the source of the term "unuard" for undecimal (base-11)? As the undecimal page's main editor, I am not familiar with the term, nor does a Google search bring anything up. If it can be sourced, I'll add it to the undecimal page. If it cannot, I recommend changing this page to undecimal (or one of the known variants). Thanks!Hazegrae (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in this article. It was one of several problematic additions by an IP, and I reverted it less than an hour after it was added, and 14 hours before you posted here. The IP made several strange edits to various number-related articles and drafts. If you cannot find any mention of "unuard" then just ignore it. Meters (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]