[OT] Jugglers, the math competition is now open.

[Franco187]

I’m sure (or I hope) some of super geeks here, and even some of the few
non-geeks, will enjoy that friendly competition I am officially declaring
open right now.

Here is how it goes:
Play this simple and fun math game called Zetamac:
http://arithmetic.zetamac.com/

Use a keyboard with a numerical keypad on the side, use the default
setting and once a while post your high score and your (estimated) average
score. No matter how much you score at first, I find it really fun and
satisfying to see how much one can improve day after day.

The winner gets bragging rights, the satisfaction of having improved some
of his or her mental faculties, endless adulation and admiration from his
fellow jugglers and vastly improved popularity with the most attractive
members of the opposite sex.

--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----

[Franco187]

I’ve had about 3 months of practice playing this game 5 to 15 minutes a
day, so unless some really good people starts playing it often, it
wouldn’t be fair for me to participate and declare myself winner. But I
would love it if someone were to beat me, it certainly would motivate me
to try harder.

If you find Zetamac to be too hard or too dry, try Raindrops. It’s an
easier (at first), flashier and sometimes more exciting math game:
http://www.lumosity.com/brain-games/problem-solving-games/raindrops

[matthew weaver]

This is an interesting idea. I find a lot of jugglers to be very
mathematically inclined. I think it has something to do with the logical
pattern of juggling that interests mathematical people. My first score is
27

[Viveca]

Franco187 wrote:

>
> Franco187 wrote:
> >

> > Here is how it goes:
> > Play this simple and fun math game called Zetamac:
> > http://arithmetic.zetamac.com/

> > The winner gets bragging rights, the satisfaction of having improved some
> > of his or her mental faculties, endless adulation and admiration from his
> > fellow jugglers and vastly improved popularity with the most attractive
> > members of the opposite sex.
> >

> If you find Zetamac to be too hard or too dry, try Raindrops. It’s an
> easier (at first), flashier and sometimes more exciting math game:
> http://www.lumosity.com/brain-games/problem-solving-games/raindrops
>

Thanks a lot. I was wondering what to do with my copious free time, and
now I have relinquished all choice in the matter.

Viveca

[Peter Bone]

I guess we have to use the default settings? I got 12 on my first go. I'm
more interested in just multiplication so I then did multiplication of
2-100 * 2-100 and got 7 and then did 2-1000 * 2-1000 and got 3 and then
did 2-10000 *2-10000 and got 1. With practice I'm sure I could get more.
I'd prefer if they put the numbers above each other in columns though
because it makes it easier to keep track of where you are with large
numbers.

[David Cherepov]

I think I'll try this out

[david leahy]

If you gave me this about 5 years ago I would have been on it like an
autistic child. Sadly, since starting mathematics and A-level and now
University, my ability to do arithmetic is basically non-existent.

I reckon people around 14 years old actually might do well at this stuff...

Dave

[Brook Roberts]

28 on my first time, but I don't have a numerical keypad, so had to use
the normal number keys. I got 1460 average bpi for raindrops a while
ago...I've already wasted enough time on Lumosity.

[Brook Roberts]

Also, given the nature of many jugglers, I'm not sure it really is off
topic!

[Franco187]

Peter Bone wrote:


> I guess we have to use the default settings?

Yes, you “have to” use the default settings in order to get all the fame
and glory that goes with winning this very prestigious competition.

> more interested in just multiplication so I then did multiplication of
> 2-100 * 2-100 and got 7 and then did 2-1000 * 2-1000 and got 3 and then
> did 2-10000 *2-10000 and got 1.

I can only do those large numbers multiplications when I’m in the best
possible mental state, and even then I’m not as efficient as you are.
In those cases for me the exercise becomes not that much about quick
calculation as it becomes about memorizing all the different sub-results
and visualising the whole problem as if you were writing things down. It
would be so much easier if you could just write down all the sub-results
before adding them up, but that would be like cheating ;-)

[Franco187]

Viveca wrote:
>
> >
> Thanks a lot. I was wondering what to do with my copious free time, and
> now I have relinquished all choice in the matter.
>
> Viveca
>

I'm so glad I was able to fix that for you. Helping people out, that's
what I'm about.

[Franco187]

david leahy wrote:
>
>
> If you gave me this about 5 years ago I would have been on it like an
> autistic child. Sadly, since starting mathematics and A-level and now
> University, my ability to do arithmetic is basically non-existent.
>
> I reckon people around 14 years old actually might do well at this stuff...
>
> Dave
>

I’m 29 so not being 14 is no excuse for not doing well. Now stop wasting
your time with those lame A-level mathematics University stuff and start
practicing for this VERY important competition!

[Brook Roberts]

Is 55 close or still wrong order of magnitude? Someone posted a video of
137 online... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGqPcdizpag

[Peter Bone]

Yes, well I have a system that I developed (when I was about 15) to sum
the sub-results as you go so that you just have to keep track of a single
number. You just have to insert the sub results in the right place in that
number as you go while taking carries into account. Takes some practice
but not that difficult. I like to play this game on 2 digit multiplication
mainly (11-99 * 11-99) - my best being 10 so far.
My best on the default settings is now 24 but the big divisions always
slow me down. What's your mental strategy for the divisions?

[Will S]

I got twenty. I'm off home now so I'll try again tomorrow (no internet at
home).

I got completely stuck on 912 divided by 12. Thankfully that question came
last, instead of first.

[Brook Roberts]

I try and approximate it using multiples of 10 (eg for 195/5 go
50,100,150,200, so it's about 40, and then do 200-195 =5, and see how many
5s I'm out by). It's not super fast for tricky cases though, but I find
the really large mults seems to slow me down more because I sometimes get
them wrong and have to redo them.

11 on your settings :P

[Bekah.Smith]

>
> If you gave me this about 5 years ago I would have been on it like an
> autistic child. Sadly, since starting mathematics and A-level and now
> University, my ability to do arithmetic is basically non-existent.
>
> I reckon people around 14 years old actually might do well at this stuff...
>
> Dave
>

That sounds about right for me. I used to love math and was pretty good
at it...but then decided for some reason to study accounting. After 4
years of being drilled into using a calculator for everything, even adding
simple number, I'm now completely awful at this.

I got a score of 14, which includes using a calculator for the division
ones because I didn't stand a chance against them. Still, it's addicting,
and I'm about to play another round...

Thankfully I'm a girl, so I don't need to rely on mathematics to make me
attractive to the opposite sex... :)

- beKAH!

[Marlon]

12*100 = 1200
1200* 3/4 = 900
900+12 = 912
--> 76*12 = 912

This is thus far the best way I found to calculate those kind of problems.
Well ... except for my (th)rusty TI-83 calculator that is.

[Marlon]

Average around 29.
It's addicting but it isn't fun, the worst kind of activity.

[Greg Phillips]

Franco187 wrote:
> ...and vastly improved popularity with the most attractive

> members of the opposite sex.

So gay math-nerd jugglers need not apply?

I know more than one of those.

Greg

[lutkus]

Bekah.Smith wrote:
> Thankfully I'm a girl, so I don't need to rely on mathematics to make me
> attractive to the opposite sex... :)

I suspect on average, with all other things being equal, a math-skilled
girl will have to fend off more guys than a math-skilled guy would attract
girls.

And speaking of sexism, http://xkcd.com/385/

[Franco187]

Peter Bone wrote:
>
>
> Yes, well I have a system that I developed (when I was about 15) to sum
> the sub-results as you go so that you just have to keep track of a single
> number. You just have to insert the sub results in the right place in that
> number as you go while taking carries into account. Takes some practice
> but not that difficult.

I go about the same way but it’s still so easy to make one tiny mistake
and then you have to start over. The number you have to keep track of can
be rather large and it’s easy to remember just one digit wrong when at the
same time you are doing some rather hard new sub-task.
But yes, it will become easier if I just practice it more.

> the big divisions always
> slow me down. What's your mental strategy for the divisions?

Divisions also use to slow me down but I can now solve them just as
quickly as multiplications (and much more quickly with large numbers).
Here is my mental strategy for it, it's very similar to what I first
learned to do in primary school. I will be more descriptive than you
probably need me to be just in case it helps someone else.


Let’s take Will’s example of 912 divided by 12.

Of course, it helps a lot to know your math tables up to 12.

What number can I multiply by 12 to get close to 91? *
6 x 12 = 72 = too little (cause 91 minus 72 = more than 12)
8 x 12 = 96 = too much (more than 91)
7 x 12 = 84 = Ok
Type in 7 in the answer box and forget about it.

91 – 84 = 7
7 united with the last digit gives you 72.
72 divided by 12 = 6 (or if you prefer, 6 x 12 = 72) **
Type in 6: you win! (912 divided by 12 = 76)

With practice, the whole process shouldn’t take more than 4 seconds.

You can go about the same way with very large numbers and I think it’s
much easier than multiplications with large numbers. You can always type
each digit of the answer one at a time, forget about it and move on to the
next sub-task. Also the number you have to keep track of is much lower
than with those toff multiplications.



*: If you are working with a number divided by a larger than 12 number,
you now have to estimate the sub-result a little, that may be the hardest
part but still it’s not that bad.

**: If at that point you are confident that the first digits you typed
were correct, one less ethical way to proceed is to try to guess the last
digit, and then quickly erase and type in your next guess until you find
right one. That's not the most efficient way but it can help after you
made a mistake.

[Franco187]

Brook Roberts wrote:
>
>
> Is 55 close or still wrong order of magnitude? Someone posted a video of
> 137 online... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGqPcdizpag
>

55 after just a few tries is pretty damn impressive. It took me 3 or 4
weeks of short but daily practice to get there (btw the progress becomes
much slower after that period, the average keeps improving but rarely does
your personal best). My first score was somewhere around 20, maybe less.


137 is just absolutely insane! I want that person to be banned right away
if she ever comes near this forum.

[Franco187]

Bekah.Smith wrote:
>
> Thankfully I'm a girl, so I don't need to rely on mathematics to make me
> attractive to the opposite sex... :)
>

I do arithmetic mostly because I enjoy it and because it’s good brain
training. But of course, the fact that it makes me popular with the ladies
is a pretty fun side benefit.

[Franco187]

Greg Phillips wrote:
>
> Franco187 wrote:
> > ...and vastly improved popularity with the most attractive
> > members of the opposite sex.
>
> So gay math-nerd jugglers need not apply?
>
> I know more than one of those.
>
> Greg
>
>

Of course they can! I just don’t have yet the necessary information to
guarantee positive results with the target group.

[Bekah.Smith]

>
>
> That sounds about right for me. I used to love math and was pretty good
> at it...but then decided for some reason to study accounting. After 4
> years of being drilled into using a calculator for everything, even adding
> simple number, I'm now completely awful at this.
>
> I got a score of 14, which includes using a calculator for the division
> ones because I didn't stand a chance against them. Still, it's addicting,
> and I'm about to play another round...
>
> Thankfully I'm a girl, so I don't need to rely on mathematics to make me
> attractive to the opposite sex... :)
>
> - beKAH!
>

Okay, I played it a few more times, figured out some shortcuts, and got 22
without a calculator! Thanks for making me smarter today!!

[Peter Bone]

Franco187 wrote:
>
> Peter Bone wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes, well I have a system that I developed (when I was about 15) to sum
> > the sub-results as you go so that you just have to keep track of a single
> > number. You just have to insert the sub results in the right place in that
> > number as you go while taking carries into account. Takes some practice
> > but not that difficult.
>
>
> I go about the same way but it’s still so easy to make one tiny mistake
> and then you have to start over. The number you have to keep track of can
> be rather large and it’s easy to remember just one digit wrong when at the
> same time you are doing some rather hard new sub-task.
> But yes, it will become easier if I just practice it more.

With larger number I have a trick to avoid trying to remember large
numbers. After each digit of the first number you can take off one of the
digits because it won't change any more. I remember these digits more like
I would a telephone number of pi. This way, the changing part of the
numbers always stays the same length and not too long - until you start to
get to 5 or 6 digit multiplication, where my method starts to get too
hard. So you're kind of using short term and long term memory.

Thanks for the division help. This is how I do it when dividing my a 1
digit number but I never learnt 11 or 12 times tables because you don't
need it for multiplication.

Pete

[Peter Bone]

Brook Roberts wrote:
> 11 on your settings :P

12 on 11-99 * 11-99 :-)

[pjgpv]

I'll make you smarter today!

..oh wait, that doesn't work, does it?
Thwarted again.

[Julius]

Franco187 wrote:
>
> I’m sure (or I hope) some of super geeks here, and even some of the few
> non-geeks, will enjoy that friendly competition I am officially declaring
> open right now.
>
> Here is how it goes:
> Play this simple and fun math game called Zetamac:
> http://arithmetic.zetamac.com/
>
> Use a keyboard with a numerical keypad on the side, use the default
> setting and once a while post your high score and your (estimated) average
> score. No matter how much you score at first, I find it really fun and
> satisfying to see how much one can improve day after day.
>
> The winner gets bragging rights, the satisfaction of having improved some
> of his or her mental faculties, endless adulation and admiration from his

> fellow jugglers and vastly improved popularity with the most attractive

> members of the opposite sex.
>

Too hard
10

[Bekah.Smith]

> I'll make you smarter today!
>
> ..oh wait, that doesn't work, does it?
> Thwarted again.
>
>

I think your meaning was lost on the internet? Or was that a pick-up
line?... :)

[pjgpv]

Bekah.Smith wrote:
>
> > I'll make you smarter today!
> >
> > ..oh wait, that doesn't work, does it?
> > Thwarted again.
> >
> >
>
> I think your meaning was lost on the internet? Or was that a pick-up
> line?... :)
>
>

I was using one of those 'I'll x your y' pick up lines.
I think the meaning was apparent, just the humour lost.

[Bekah.Smith]

>
> I was using one of those 'I'll x your y' pick up lines.
> I think the meaning was apparent, just the humour lost.
>

Wow, a formula for pick-up lines. That fits perfectly with the theme of
this thread. :)

[Franco187]

Julius wrote:
>
>
> Too hard
> 10
>


10 may be the lowest score posted here yet, but I'm pretty sure it's still
above average. Anyone wants to guess what that average would be, say if we
tested every 12-70 years old persons in North America and Western Europe
(where most people in this forum live)?

[Franco187]

Peter Bone wrote:
>
> Brook Roberts wrote:
> > 11 on your settings :P
>
> 12 on 11-99 * 11-99 :-)
>

13 on 11-99 divided by 11-99 :-)

But only 6 on 11-99 * 11-99 :-(

[Franco187]

Franco187 wrote:
>
> Peter Bone wrote:
> >
> > Brook Roberts wrote:
> > > 11 on your settings :P
> >
> > 12 on 11-99 * 11-99 :-)
> >
>
> 13 on 11-99 divided by 11-99 :-)
>
> But only 6 on 11-99 * 11-99 :-(
>

14 on 11-99 * 11-99 !!!


Francis, obviously in need of some sort of self-esteem boost right now.

[thegoheads]

Franco187 wrote:
> http://arithmetic.zetamac.com/


A few days ago I got 18 first try. I played a few more times and had
trouble matching or beating my first score. Tried again just now and got
19! That's not too bad, eh? I think it would take a lot of practice for
me to score much higher than the low 20s.

Hey Francis, you haven't posted your high score yet (unless I overlooked
it somewhere), I'm curious, what's your high score and your average?

-Steve

[David Cherepov]

I forgot about this, and then I tried and realized that I'm really
mediocre. I got 27 the first time, and then got an average of 20 10 times
doing it again. I'm going to practice more.

[Franco187]

thegoheads wrote:
>
> Franco187 wrote:
> > http://arithmetic.zetamac.com/
>
>
> A few days ago I got 18 first try. I played a few more times and had
> trouble matching or beating my first score. Tried again just now and got
> 19! That's not too bad, eh? I think it would take a lot of practice for
> me to score much higher than the low 20s.
>

19 is indeed a good start. My sister, who is a pretty smart A++++ student,
tried the game yesterday and got 10, but she would only have gotten 3 if
she hadn't twice used a calculator to get out of trouble.

> Hey Francis, you haven't posted your high score yet (unless I overlooked
> it somewhere), I'm curious, what's your high score and your average?
>
> -Steve
>

Ooops, did I forget to post my high score? ;-)
Well, if you must know: it's OVER 9000!

[Franco187]

“OVER 9000” is a stupid youtube joke, sorry about that. My real long term
goal was to reach 80, which I did a few minutes before I posted this
thread. My average for the last two weeks is getting close to 70 (not
including one warm up game per day and the about 30% of games where I’ll
just hit the reload button after a few seconds).

That’s after about a 1000 games played during more than a 100 days, but
I’m still pretty proud of it : ) I’m now in the process of brashly telling
everyone around me who is kind enough to pretend to listen and care about
it. It can be hard to find a way to insert that into a random conversation.

[Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu]

Just tried this. Got 28. (Probably would do better with a numeric
keypad.) Reminded me of a competition called Number Sense that I did
pretty well at in high school.

Martin

[Peter Bone]

Franco187 wrote:
>
> Franco187 wrote:
> >
> > Peter Bone wrote:
> > >
> > > Brook Roberts wrote:
> > > > 11 on your settings :P
> > >
> > > 12 on 11-99 * 11-99 :-)
> > >
> >
> > 13 on 11-99 divided by 11-99 :-)
> >
> > But only 6 on 11-99 * 11-99 :-(
> >
>
> 14 on 11-99 * 11-99 !!!
>
>
> Francis, obviously in need of some sort of self-esteem boost right now.

15 on 11-99 * 11-99
Starting to get difficult now. Can't afford to make a mistake.

[^Tom_]

Franco187 wrote:
> Let’s take Will’s example of 912 divided by 12.

In that example:
it helps to notice that 912 has an odd 12, so the question is 900/l2 and
then add 1 to your answer
9 is 3/4 of 12

75
+1

76

That's my advice for some of the "easier" ones, spot the best simplified
solution and then work from there. Similar to how I'd do the number
section in Countdown.

[^Tom_]

I just got 36 on my first attempt. A few fewer typos might have enabled me
to do the final trivial subtraction before the time ran out.

[RobvanHeijst]

David Cherepov wrote:
>
> I forgot about this, and then I tried and realized that I'm really
> mediocre. I got 27 the first time, and then got an average of 20 10 times
> doing it again. I'm going to practice more.
>
>
>

I got 22. Second try. I don´t remember what my first one was because I did
that one 4 days ago.

[Brook Roberts]

15 a few times but I can't seem to get 16...pretty tricky now.

[Brook Roberts]

16 :)

[Rekenbij]

> Hello, nice to see you guys have this competition. I believe that you guys
can get over 100 easily, just some more practice. I have been wanting people
to get higher scores 130-140+ for a long time, and i hope those people exist,
they surely must exist. so if you guys found a video higher than 137 please
let it be known!!
Ps: good luck with your competition.
God bless

[Rekenbij]

Franco187 wrote:
>
> Brook Roberts wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is 55 close or still wrong order of magnitude? Someone posted a video of
> > 137 online... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGqPcdizpag
> >
>
> 55 after just a few tries is pretty damn impressive. It took me 3 or 4
> weeks of short but daily practice to get there (btw the progress becomes
> much slower after that period, the average keeps improving but rarely does
> your personal best). My first score was somewhere around 20, maybe less.
>
>
> 137 is just absolutely insane! I want that person to be banned right away
> if she ever comes near this forum.
>

> ps: i'm not a she, but a he.

[Franco187]

Rekenbij wrote:

>
> Franco187 wrote:
> > 137 is just absolutely insane! I want that person to be banned right away
> > if she ever comes near this forum.
> >


> Hello, nice to see you guys have this competition. I believe that you guys
> can get over 100 easily, just some more practice. I have been wanting people
> to get higher scores 130-140+ for a long time, and i hope those people exist,
> they surely must exist. so if you guys found a video higher than 137 please
> let it be known!!
> Ps: good luck with your competition.
> God bless
>
>
>

Wo I did not expect this. So much for me pre-emptively banning you! 80 was
my long term goal and I had no plan to push it further until a few days
ago when I had a few really good games and I thought I might as well try
to reach a 100 (I might even go for 110 or more if you first learn to
juggle 5 balls!). If you're not too busy, do you have any advices on how
to get there other than "some more practice". One more question: do you
also train multiplications and divisions with higher number?

Tks for stopping by

[Franco187]

Rekenbij wrote:

>
> Franco187 wrote:
> >
> > 137 is just absolutely insane! I want that person to be banned right away
> > if she ever comes near this forum.
>
> ps: i'm not a she, but a he.
>
>

Yeah I was pretty sure you were a he (is that sexist?). I used she because
of a french to english confusion about how I should treat the word
"person".

[Rekenbij]

Hello

I just scored 140 and got 138 the try after, i was kind of surprised, as i
was still making mistakes.
i presume you already know the tricks with multiplying by 11?
11x22=2(2+2)2= 242
11x23=2(2+3)3=253
11x44=4(4+4)4= 484
11x96=9(9+6)6=1056

Atleast you get the point.

12x24=2(2x2+4)(2x4)=288
12x21=2(2x2+1)(2x1)=251
12x36=432

I normally play this game for my relaxation in between studies,
so i don't often do higher numbers, but when i do, i keep the first digits
up to 12. or sometimes up to 11, as those are just easier than 12.

I hope this 11 trick somehow helps you.

[Rekenbij]

Good to hear you also making some progress
God bless

[Brook Roberts]

Not tempted to have a go at 11-99 * 11-99 then...?

[Franco187]

Semester is now over (except for one annoying overdue paper I'm hoping
I'll finish tomorrow). I can finally stop wasting my time with this stuff
and dedicate more time to the really important things in life:

11-99 * 11-99 : 18
11-99 / 11-99 : 19
Default setting: 83
: )