I am not sure if its me but I could've easily done 2 digit calculations in literal seconds... using the abacus model
Then our classes of abacus were shut and the thing is, that now I found myself a slight degradation because with abacus there was an assured confidence but then after abacus I used to blunder tiny things like 6+7=15 and 7*6 and other things.
Maybe my personal experience with abacus was how it ended. I had it for 4 semesters and got 4 medals in abacus for getting full marks but I still believe that it made my common maths, which it meant to improve a little weaker because well now although I don't pull up an abacus in my mind, I still have all the learning of basic things like 6+7=13 and other stuff but for some utter magical reason, learning abacus made me confuse it.
Overall it was a great experience though, seeing my cousins surprised that I was doing 2 digit numbers like 42x 37 calculation in 10 seconds in my mind while playing pass ball at 5th grade, maybe that was one of my peak achievements as I guess I have forgotten abacus completely...
I also remember one of my cousin saying that abacus looks like a music instrument and he used to make a little music out of it. Maybe fun times indeed. I remember it was the same day that I discovered the badlands biome in minecraft, maybe I was in 4th grade. Gold is really common in badlands, I remmeber going into the cave if I am correct.
Edit: also I meant not any hate towards abacus or maybe its just skill issue from my side and I just felt like saying it. I don't know why but for the most part although I still do these mistakes, I used to do it on a much higher frequency after stopping abacus and then covid hit and although I was a strong math student logically, I used to do some mathematical blunders.., for the most part they happen rarely now but still they sometimes do exist when my brain gets into too much auto pilot mode and I usually just prefer to solve calculations in the end because of this in any question or whatever, and maybe only just simplify things at most in intermediate steps so that I do least amount of mistakes possible. I usually don't think about this too much but I used to think that damn I am bad at this and used to remember the abacus past but then I saw some comments on reddit etc. saying that there were whole calculus phd teachers who sometimes did silly mistakes and maybe it was okay... felt really better about myself.
I've got a soroban but never got around to learning it. Definitely should pick that up again.
When I was at Uni (electrical engineering) I noticed that the Chinese students would reach for their calculator way less than western students and assumed that was because of the abacus.
Side note: they tried to shape a control theory subject (everyone was getting 100%) by disallowing calculators in tests. It was rough having to do things like long division for the first time in decades. Still everyone got 100% haha.
https://www.ee.torontomu.ca/~elf/abacus/feynman.html
And HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27934887
Also, thanks for the UI critique, points taken! The design decision was to hide nitty gritty detail about the background unless the reader was extra interested, in hopes of making an article with gradual / adjustable depth so readers who aren't as interested can get a tl;dr for each section (I still don't know how a nice UI to do this, although LLMs make the idea more in reach now).
It's really clean and good.
With a soroban and a slide rule, you can do most basic engineering problems.
The main goals were to track learning progress and truly experience what it meant to have a virtual abacus in my mind's eye.
Honored to get a comment from you!
-----
Step 0 (plan) : We're multiplying 42x37. We need to find some simple (multiple of ten) numbers that are really close to the answer here, and then either subtract or add what's left over from our estimate. The most straight forward way to do this is to turn the problem into 42x40 - 42x3.
Step 1: 42 x 40 = 420 x 4 = 400 x 4 + 20 x 4 = 1600 + 80 = 1680
Step 2: 42 x 3 = 40 x 3 + 2 x 3 = 120 + 6 = 126
Step 3: 1680 - 126 = 1680 - 100 - 20 - 6 = 1580 - 20 - 6 = 1560 - 6 = 1554
-----
This process generalizes to basically any two numbers. And some otherwise scary sounding numbers make it really easy. For instance what's 87x99? It sounds hard but it's crazy simple because it's just 87x100 - 87 = 8700 - 87 = 8700 - 80 - 7 = 8620 - 7 = 8613, solvable in a second or two with practice. This is a 100% transferrable skill that will easily put you in the 'stupid human tricks' level of mental math - quite a fun 'trick' to have when teaching math!
> the correlation between Asia and mental math + abacus is spurious
However, I do not think the correlation is spurious. Involving additional brain areas like premotor (imagining moving the beads) and parietal (seeing the beads) is likely responsible for the incredible speeds achieved by trained abacus users. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00050-8
Western mental addition operates on fundamentally different timescales. Here's Aaryan Shukla adding 100 4-digit numbers in 300ms per number: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ouUk0zIbos
For a simple example: 1234 + 5678 + 9012. You get: 15 thousands, 8 hundreds, 11 tens, 14 ones. Now adjust for overflow (small to big): 4 ones (1 overflow moved), 2 tens (1 overflow moved), 9 hundreds, 15 thousands. Final calculation: 15,924. Notably the final 'adjustment' phase does not need to be done in 300ms, so all he's demonstrating is being able to repeatedly add 0-9 to 4 small numbers in 300ms. That's certainly an achievement and one that would require a lot of training, but nothing beyond that.
You can also see this in the video by his timing. The numbers start at 22 seconds and he finishes at 59 seconds. So he spent 30 seconds on the numbers (100 numbers at 0.3 seconds), and then around 6 seconds to input his answer.
The claim is not that the algorithm is complicated, but that the abacus training helps in execution by involving visuospatial brain areas instead. Your argument is like saying training methods for track athletes are all equally effective because running is simply putting one foot in front of the other quickly.
encom•17h ago
veqq•16h ago
guerrilla•16h ago
because_789•16h ago
The black triangle bullets are expandable, folks, and worth expanding.
crazygringo•15h ago
They just look like summary bullets.
Why would anyone write an article where the first paragraphs were collapsed anyways...? But then later paragraphs are expanded, so you think that's where the article starts?
This may actually win the award for worst UX I've seen this year. Because it never gives any indication there's any UX at all. Just, wow.
gobdovan•16h ago
The point is for the author to understand how they learn (how many things become automatic in his brain and when, mental chunk formation, when performance plateaus). They just use the Japanese abacus as an excuse to do it.
mouse_•16h ago
guerrilla•16h ago
timcobb•12h ago