Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This has been on my mind for quite a while now... Is it really crucial to be able to crunch numbers on the fly?

I have considerate difficulty making out the quotient of $1 / 0.732 $ for example. I can approximate it well, but still (~1.3...). When I go for precision, I am too slow.

Are there techniques to accelerate arithmetic operations?

share|improve this question
    
Related... –  J. M. Sep 8 '11 at 19:18
    
"Is it really crucial to be able to crunch numbers on the fly?" - well it's sorta kinda embarrassing for me to take long in figuring out how much change I ought to be getting, or reckoning how much to tip the waitress. Otherwise... –  J. M. Sep 8 '11 at 19:21
    
Well, that's not really a problem... But more intensive operations, indeed, drag me down. –  Curiosity Sep 8 '11 at 19:24
    
Crucial for what? It can be useful in some circumstances, but it really depends on your career goals. A mathematician doesn't really need it, although occasionally mental arithmetic can come in handy in a calculus lecture. –  Robert Israel Sep 8 '11 at 23:53

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Doerfler's book Dead Reckoning: Calculating Without Instruments contains algorithms specifically designed for computing nontrivial things mentally. But it's still not easy and requires quite a lot of practice, I guess. To begin with, one must be really good at multiplying two-digit numbers (so I'm lost there already...).

share|improve this answer

The first step should be to simplify as much as possible. Start by getting rid of the decimals: $$ \frac{1}{0.732}=\frac{1000}{732} $$ Knowing divisibility tests, it's easy to see that the numerator and denominator are divisible by 4, so let's reduce the fraction: $$ \frac{1000}{732}=\frac{1000\div4}{732\div4}=\frac{250}{(700\div4)+(32\div4)}=\\ \frac{250}{175+8}=\frac{250}{183} $$ The numerator is larger than the denominator, so we can strip out whole numbers: $$ \frac{250}{183}=\frac{183}{183}+\frac{67}{183}=1\frac{67}{183} $$ At that point, you technically have your answer, $1\frac{67}{183}$, but you wanted the decimal places.

For decimals, there's a simple method for denominators which end in 9 that I refer to as Leapfrog Division. There's also a slightly more advanced version for denominators ending in 1.

I can see that the $183$ will easily scale up to end in a 9 by multiplying by 3, so we'll multiply the numerator and denominator by 3: $$ 1\frac{67}{183}=1\frac{67\times3}{183\times3}=1\frac{201}{549} $$ Now, we're ready to use the leapfrog division trick to get the decimals. Start by writing down the $1$ followed by decimal point, just to get it out of the way. Next, divide $201$ by $55$ ($55$ is used because $549$ is next to $550$) so as to get a quotient and a remainder: $$ 201\div55=3, \ remainder \ 36 $$ Write down the quotient, $3$, to the right of the decimal point: $$ 1.3 $$ Next, create a new problem by taking the remainder, $36$, and "leapfrog" it in front of the quotient, $3$, to make a new number, $363$. Just as before, you'll divide this number by 55: $$ 363\div55=6, \ remainder \ 33 $$ Write this new quotient to the right of your previous results: $$ 1.36 $$ Again, leapfrog the remainder, $33$, in front of the quotient, $6$, to make a new number, $336$, which you'll divide by $55$. Keep repeating this approach for as many decimals as you deem appropriate, or until you notice they're repeating: $$ 336\div55=6, \ remainder \ 6 \\ Result: \ 1.366 \\ 66\div55=1, \ remainder \ 11 \\ Result: \ 1.3661 \\ 111\div55=2, \ remainder \ 1 \\ Result: \ 1.36612 \\ 12\div55=0, \ remainder \ 12 \\ Result: \ 1.366120 \\ 120\div55=2, \ remainder \ 10 \\ Result: \ 1.3661202 \\ 102\div55=1, \ remainder \ 47 \\ Result: \ 1.36612021 \\ 471\div55=8, \ remainder \ 31 \\ Result: \ 1.366120218 \\ $$ ...and so on. I stopped at $1.366120218$, but you shouldn't have any problem understanding how to continue. According to Wolfram|Alpha, this calculation is right as far as it goes.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.