Galactic Matyhematics.

@engineer,

Quote:

Then why haven't you posted it? Why have you watched your credibility drain down day by day and not posted it? Why have you lied and said you've already posted it, dedicated long winded posts saying why you can't post it? Just post it again. It if exists.

1/17 using "VM"

well, I didn't lie deliberatly, I was convinced it was here in a link.
I was wrong about that, sorry and excuzes moi.
the talk about credibility is bla bla bla. Some people just won't get this kind of math, and that is ok.And then call it a lack of credibility. I just don't care about that, I know for myself I am as honest as I can and I know how much better VM or Galactic maths is and everyone who is interested cn find it out for his or her self. It is just fear what I read. Conventional math is really going down.

well first I want 1/17 seen in the conventional way
Wouldn't be that hard now, will it? Wink

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

well first I want 1/17 seen in the conventional way
Wouldn't be that hard now, will it? Wink

OK. I will do 1/17 the conventional way.

Then (finally) you can do 1/17 the "Vedic" way. And everyone will rejoice with much happiness. Better yet, when you do this (and I fully expect that you won't) you will prove to everyone that you aren't full of crap.

------------
17| 1

17 doesn't go into 1 so you add a 0 and then a decimal point. (The result now looks like 0.___ )
17 doesn't go into 10 so you add another 0 (result 0.0___)
17 goes into 100 5 times, so you put a 5 (result 0.05____)
5 * 17 is 85, you subtract that from 100 to get 15.
You add a zero to get 150
17 goes into 150 8 times so you put an 8 (result 0.058 ___ )
17 * 8 is 136 you subtract that from 150 to get 14
You add a zero to get 140
17 goes into 140 8 times so you put another 8 (result 0.0588)
17*8 = 136 you subtrack that from 140 to get 4
add a zero to get 40
17 goes into 40 2 times so you put a 2 (result 0.05882)

There you have it. 1/17... done using long division to 5 places after the decimal.

Now Quehoniaomath.... I wait patiently to see how long it takes to do this in Galactic Math

The clock starts now (3:52 PM EDT on August 6, 2014)

0 Replies

Quote:

17| 1

17 doesn't go into 1 so you add a 0 and then a decimal point. (The result now looks like 0.___ )
17 doesn't go into 10 so you add another 0 (result 0.0___)
17 goes into 100 5 times, so you put a 5 (result 0.05____)
5 * 17 is 85, you subtract that from 100 to get 15.
You add a zero to get 150
17 goes into 150 8 times so you put an 8 (result 0.058 ___ )
17 * 8 is 136 you subtract that from 150 to get 14
You add a zero to get 140
17 goes into 140 8 times so you put another 8 (result 0.0588)
17*8 = 136 you subtrack that from 140 to get 4
add a zero to get 40
17 goes into 40 2 times so you put a 2 (result 0.05882)

There you have it. 1/17... done using long division to 5 places after the decimal.

Now Quehoniaomath.... I wait patiently to see how long it takes to do this in Galactic Math

Ok, thanks for your work and appreciated.
Do you see how tiresome, awkward and errorprone this is?

However, about the time-thing.
First, you are lousy at contracts! Don't you really know you have two sides and both sides have to agree? You didn't ask me nothing about if i want to enter in a sort of idiotic contest with you! The reality is I don't and I don't care.
I don't share your ridiculous competitiveness.

That being said.

Well, VM works with the remainders without really doing the division and finds,

(it is done by Geometrical Progression. Lots to say about this one)

These are the remainders:

10, 15, 14, 4, 6, 9, 5 , 16 / 7, 2 , 3 , 13, 11, 8 , 12 ,1

Now we multiply them with 7 and we get:

70, 105, 98,28, 42, 63, 35, 112, 49, 14, 21, 91, 77, 56, 84 , 7

Now we drop the left side digits and put down only the right side digits and we get:

1/17=0,05882352 /94117647

and 16 decimals! we do know that beforehand because of 17-1=16!

Voila!

And if you see the digits on the right side and the left side you see that

their sum is '9'
05882352
94117647
-------------
99999999

so we could have done it with half the work!!!

AND only simple multiplications, no divisions, no guessing etc etc etc

And there are still other ways to do this in Vedic math,

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Face it Quehoniamomath.

You and your crackpot math are unable to solve a problem as simple as 1/17.

All you have to do is show me how to do 1/17 simply using your so-called "Vedic" math. If you do that you will prove that you aren't full of crap.

I did my part. So put up, or shut up! (although I doubt you will do either)

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

duh? I just did that!!!!

why the hell do you react this way?

My guess is you don't like what you read!!!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

No you didn't

You put some numbers up with the comment

(it is done by Geometrical Progression. Lots to say about this one)

You explained nothing.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

No you didn't

You put some numbers up with the comment

(it is done by Geometrical Progression. Lots to say about this one)

You explained nothing.

well, you are right about the Geometrical Progression. and I also said a lot to be told about that, BUT I have calculated it the way it is done in VM!!!!

You really can't say I didn't. You only can say that you don't understand it!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

No you didn't.

Unless you explain how you calculated the "remainders", then you have exlained nothing. Your "Vedic" method is the same as the real "conventional" method.

I understand it perfectly well. I see exactly what you are doing. Your process is the same as my process... you are just skipping a couple of steps

Unless you can explain the "geometric progression" than you are just copying my work.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

No you didn't.

Yes I really did!

Quote:

Unless you explain how you calculated the "remainders", then you have exlained nothing. Your "Vedic" method is the same as the real "conventional" method.

Read your own post! You haven't asked me for an explanation!~
You asked me to calculate the VM way, that I did!

Quote:

I understand it perfectly well. I see exactly what you are doing. Your process is the same as my process... you are just skipping a couple of steps

The same as your process?????? You really don't get it, sorry mate!
I am not skipping anything, VM is omitting a lot of your steps!
Because they are not neccesary at all!
That is VM, the ideal is one line or as short as possible.
It is a completely different way of dong arithmetic or calculations,
Completely different! You really don't see exctly what I am doing and that is that you are being blinded by the conventional way,I get that, it was the same with me.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

These are the remainders:

10, 15, 14, 4, 6, 9, 5 , 16 / 7, 2 , 3 , 13, 11, 8 , 12 ,1

You started out with these numbers. You don't state how you calculate them. If you can demonstrate a quicker easier way to calculate the remainders then I use, I would be impressed. But I don't think you can.

I calculated the same numbers... so of course we got the same answer. We both used the same process. The one difference is that I explained how I calculated each value. You just listed them with no explanation on where they come from (which doesn't help anyone).

So you are still full of crap.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

These are the remainders:

10, 15, 14, 4, 6, 9, 5 , 16 / 7, 2 , 3 , 13, 11, 8 , 12 ,1

So before you use "VM", you have to use standard math to solve the problem to get all the remainders? And you had to get someone to do that for you because you couldn't get it yourself? Using your method, you have to do the problem twice to get the answer that real math can get the first time? You are claiming this is somehow better?

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

So before you use "VM", you have to use standard math to solve the problem to get all the remainders?

of coure not! I haven't done it that way at all! I wrote I had done it with Geometrical Progresion. Where is this one coming from?

Quote:

And you had to get someone to do that for you because you couldn't get it yourself?

sorry? someone? what are you talking like an idiot!

Quote:

Using your method, you have to do the problem twice to get the answer that real math can get the first time? You are claiming this is somehow better?

Twice???????????????????????????????????????????????
wow! You are really blind! It cost less time. and is even better, more decimals!
less errorprone etc etc

Are you blind or what?

ee, wehere are these people coming from? unbelievable!

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You started out with these numbers. You don't state how you calculate them. If you can demonstrate a quicker easier way to calculate the remainders then I use, I would be impressed. But I don't think you can.

of course I can, it is extremely simple!
But first do you agree that if I have done the reminders a faster and better way, that the rest of the calculations are faster, less errorprone etc?

"yes" , should be your answer! Wink

and if I can will you retract your statement and officialy apologize?

Quote:

So you are still full of crap.

I don't think you have that integrity, but we'll see.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Quote:
So before you use "VM", you have to use standard math to solve the problem to get all the remainders?

of coure not! I haven't done it that way at all! I wrote I had done it with Geometrical Progresion. Where is this one coming from?

What you write and what you do don't seem to correlate. You asked Mac to solve the problem in the standard way, he did so and you used his remainders to generate your answer so....

Standard math is required to generate the remainders (which also generates the answer) then you use another technique to generate the answer again.

And there is no geometric progression anywhere in multiplying remainders and dropping digits.

Let's try it again. From scratch (not using Mac's computations), compute 1/17 using "VM". Just show us how it is done from beginning to end with all the steps. Easy, right?

2 Replies

@engineer,

If you can magically come up with numbers by "Geometric progression"... then why didn't you just come up with the numbers 0, 5, 8, 8, 2, 3, 5, and 2 by this unexplained magical hand waving...

That way you would have saved the trouble of any multiplication (magical hand waving can do that).

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

Standard math is required to generate the remainders (which also generates the answer) then you use another technique to generate the answer again.

Simply not true , see below!

1/17=?

how to get the remainders without real division works as follows:

That is very easy in VM!

1. The first remainder is
10 (because 17 > 10)
Now 10 will be our multiplier (the geometric proportion is here 1:10)
so

2 10 (our multiplier) x 10 , the numner in point 1.
However this is 10x10=100 and we have to cast out the 17´s
(subtract 17 from 100 till the outcome is less then 17)
this is 15,

3, we multiply 15 x10=150, cast out the 17's,
this is 14

4, we multiply 14 x 10=140.
Casting outs the 17's again
This one is 4

5 We multiply 4 x 10=40
Casting out the 17's agian:
This one is 6

6 we multiply 10 x 6=60, we get:9

7 we multiply 9 x 10=90
casting out we get: 5

8 we multiply 5 x10=50 and we get: 16

So, the remainders are

10 15 14 4 6 9 5 16 ( WITH NO DIVISION DONE AT ALL!!!)

we now drop eacht left digit and we multiply by the right digit by the right digit from 17 that is '7'

And we put only down the right digit from the calculation! Then we will have our answer!

(for example: for '15' the right digit is '5' and we multiply that by '7' and we find '35' but put down only the right digit, that is "5")

And you can begin wherever you want! left, right , middle, it doens't matter!

So, we get

1/17=0,0588352

Now we have done half the work and the rest we find by finding the numbers such that their adding gives the number '9' as follows:

05882352
94117647
----------------
99999999

Just very mechanical and with no difficulty whatsoever!

Our answer is

1/17=058823594117647 !

and voila!

And without any division whatsoever! No guessing nothing, Just very simple and straightforward.

And remember it takes longer to write this down then to do it with Vedic Mathematics!

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

pity you didn't answer my question!

0 Replies

So you cast out the 17s instead of dividing by 17.
Did I get that right?

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

2 10 (our multiplier) x 10 , the numner in point 1.
However this is 10x10=100 and we have to cast out the 17´s
(subtract 17 from 100 till the outcome is less then 17)
this is 15,

When you "cast out" the 17's, you are dividing by 17 and finding the remainder except that you are doing it in a long and painful way. It would take you far longer to repeatedly subtract 17 from 100 than to just do the problem normally. And you have to repeat this 17 times? Sorry, that is just ridiculous. I can see why you were loathe to show it to us.

Quote:

Just very mechanical and with no difficulty whatsoever!

Very, very, very mechanical indeed.

2 Replies

@engineer,

So "casting out" is actually division?
I was afraid it was a form of exorcism.

1 Reply

Galactic Matyhematics.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know