• MudMan@fedia.io
    0·
    12 days ago

    I think it helps to remember that 3 times 7 is 21. When I think abotu that it looks less wrong.

    It’s the stupid seven multiplication table. Whatever glitch in human software makes it look so much less intuitive than all the others messes with so many other things that should be easy. I swear I struggle every time I have to look at it. I had to double check seven times three multiple times right now.

    • Kichae@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      12 days ago

      I don’t think that actually helps, because it’s all vibes. 51 looks prime, because of no reason at all, and absolutely nothing looks like it should be divisible by 17, again, because raisins.

      Knowing why it’s true doesn’t make it look right.

      • Elvith Ma'for@feddit.org
        0·
        12 days ago

        The digit sum of 51 is 6, which is divisible by three. So 51 is also divisible by three. It’s not even hard to see that it’s not prime.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        0·
        12 days ago

        But I can wrap my head around that 51 is divisible by seventeen because of 21 and seven plus something that deals with the remaining 30 somewhere.

        I know that’s not how it works, but as you say it fixes my vibes when I see the 21 hiding inside the 51.

        I’ll say this: the other thing that makes this one a hard pill to swallow is that 17 looks way too big, and my vibes fix doesn’t address that, but hey.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          12 days ago

          Why not add the digits? If the sum of digits is divisible by 3, the number is divisible by 3. 5 + 1 is divisible by 3, so it’s not prime.

          49 “looks” more prime to me because it fails that test, and if I didn’t know it’s 72, I’d say it’s probably prime.

          • MudMan@fedia.io
            0·
            12 days ago

            I think the posts along these lines are already two steps too far away from the vibes.

            Nobody is even considering the number being prime, it just looks like there can’t be a round number of one against the other because one is big and ends in seven and the other is relatively small and ends in 1.

            If you’re even thinking about divisibility rules you’re doing it wrong. As in, your brain is too impacted by maths to see what the numbers look like from instinct alone. There’s no thinking in this, they just look weird together.

    • IndiBrony@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      12 days ago

      I have to remember it in patterns.

      Digits go:

      7, 4, 1

      8, 5, 2

      9, 6, 3

      0

      Tens go:

      0, 1, 2

      2, 3, 4

      4, 5, 6,

      7

      Then my brain recognises everything else and I can’t explain it properly 😂

    • person420@lemmynsfw.com
      0·
      11 days ago

      There’s a drinking game called 7’s. Basically everyone has to count by 7 (first person: 7, second person: 14, third person: 21, etc) and you have to take a shot every time you get one wrong.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        0·
        10 days ago

        Right now, sober, I remember my multiplication tables really well and wouldn’t find it challenging.

        But when I think of the mess that I left in the kitchen last night making a snack after drinks with friends, I can imagine the damage this game would cause.

    • magic_lobster_party@fedia.io
      0·
      12 days ago

      If there’s a number that’s the most oddball in the multiplication table, it’s 7.

      It’s a prime number that doesn’t share any common divisors with 10, and isn’t adjacent to a divisor of 10 either.

      2 and 5 are common divisors of 10, so they’re piece of cake.

      3 is so small and close to 2, so it’s not too difficult to get.

      9 is one off from 10, so it has a very predictable pattern.

      4, 6 and 8 are even numbers, so they share common divisors with 10.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        12 days ago

        3 is easy because of the “digits sum to 3” trick, if you get stuck counting by 3s, it’s easy to reset. Oh, and the proof for this is based on our 10-based number system, so your point absolutely stands.

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        0·
        12 days ago

        I see them as the same except that your way illustrates what his parentheses are doing.

        • Cheradenine@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          12 days ago

          The way I see it the parentheses are good, it the 17x3 that hurts my brain.

          It’s already broken down, then gets more complicated by the 17x3. In my mind I now need to separate 17 into 10 and 7 then multiply them each by 3 and add them together, which is where we started in the first place.

          Brains are different, that’s how mine goes though.

          • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
            0·
            12 days ago

            I understood that to be a reference to the original screenshot. Thus the two equal signs. It was a way to walk you through how the breakdown ties back in.
            ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

            • Cheradenine@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              0·
              12 days ago

              Not disagreeing, and I upvoted you for a different perspective. I did not see it that way, though I do now.

              Like I said, brains are different.