Talk:Multiplication table/Archive 1

up to what do we learn?
Interesting to see the illustrated table goes up to 12x12. This is what I learnt in the early 1970s in England, but I suspect most children learn up to 10x10 these days. Can anyone confirm this? --Auximines 14:49, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Nope. Children still learn up to 12*12, in the UK.  At least, they did in the early 90s, when I learnt to multiply.     Old habits die hard.


 * I know someone who works as a maths teacher. yes children still learn up to 12 but in the national curriculum it does not list the 11 and 12 times table as a necessity.--Faizaguo (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, in the old days, people could multiply by 13 and more. Before my time, though. 12x12 would have been standard in the UK up to decimalisation.

Charles Matthews 15:50, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Autorueda Link Spammer
This external link spammer is very persistent. The link has no other purpose than to sell a product for 20 Euro. Have removed link many times. Need an experienced Wikipedian to help out now!

Why do we stop at 12?
My 6 year old daughter now has the challenge of learning her times tables.

I remember when I too had this task.

But - in the age of digits and decimilisation, why do our UK (and perhaps American?) times tables stop at 12?

Is this some hangover from early currency, perhaps 12 pennies in a shilling?


 * I suppose so. The Ministry of Education guessed that it is good to learn more than less.--Faizaguo (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do we stop at 9?
We should rejoice if our children thoroughly mastered nothing more than the single digit multiplication table. Mastery of the 12 by 12 or even the 16 by 16, which is useful if you work with binary or hexadecimal number systems, are not worth the marginal effort. Products of multiple digit factors are calculated by knowing the single digit facts and using the algorithm to carry the higher order digit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdspeier (talk • contribs)


 * Following your line of reasoning, should we rejoice if our children thoroughly mastered nothing more than the addition tables and scrapped the multiplication tables altogether? After all, products of single-digit factors can be calculated by repeated adding. Should we rejoice if they never learn that 1/3 equals 0.33333...? After all, it can be calculated using the division algorithm. Should we rejoice if they never learn that the square root of 2 corresponds to the proportion between the diagonal and the side of a square? After all, it can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem. One shouldn't rejoice in restricting elementary math skills. On the other hand, if you work with hexadecimal, you should learn the hexadecimal multiplication tables, which are thoroughly different from the decimal ones. But knowing that, in decimal, 16 by 16 equals 256 and 12 by 12 equals 144, without needing to waste time doing the calculation each time, is by no means useless. —213.37.6.106 15:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, but after a certain point, it's not that useful to be able to recite the value immediately: when was the last time you needed to know that 37 × 41 = 1517? I'm pretty sure that 16×16 is beyond the point of diminishing returns; less certain that 12×12 is (in fact I think that's just before diminishing returns). Of course, the bare minimum you need to know to work in decimal is 9×9, as the 10× table is trivial and based on nothing more than a basic understanding of place value. Double sharp (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

American Is Curious, Too
I am an American, and just as perplexed as some of you seem to be. I looked up this article after having a conversation with my nine-year-old daughter just now about the multiplication table. I was curious as to why the table goes to 12 x 12. I was thinking maybe it partly had something to do with counting things in dozens back in the old days, especially before calculators, and needing to figure immediately how many things are in say, nine dozen, for example. It would be interesting to me to know the reason.

One thought about the pattern on the page with the numbers written in a square shape with arrows around it. I don't know who wrote the explanation for that, but it seems like it could be useful if someone that speaks English could have written it. I've never seen that pattern, and could not for the life of me understand the explanation.ETO Buff (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC) ǚ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.71.14 (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

the multicaplation table is dum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.43.13.2 (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the grid is modern?
The sentence "This form of writing the multiplication table in columns with complete number sentences is still used in some countries instead of the modern grid above" is a bit strange to me considering that the grid refered to, or variants of it, has been used since before the times tables were taught in grade school. What about it makes it modern? And do only some countries use the "complete number sentences", or is this a simplified way that is commonly used - in combination with the grid - to teach children each times table individually?

External links?

 * Multiplication Table Game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.114.232.15 (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Rating Template
I'm rating this article as mid-priority and assigning it to the "math basics" field. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)