Monday, 31 August 2020

Inquisitor 1661 - Line Drawing by eXtent

My solution of this puzzle, first published in the i newspaper on 22 August 2020. 

The message around the outside of the grid was THINKING OUTSIDE THE GRID (starting in SW corner and proceeding clockwise).  The extra letters spelled out SOUTH EAST and NORTH.  

The nine blank cells were at positions 3, 6 and 9 in each of rows 3, 6 and 9.  The added cells were at the top and bottom of columns 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11; and at the left and right of rows 1, 3, 6, 9 and 11. 

The line I drew started in the SE corner and went diagonally up to the blank cell at row 3, column 3; then rightwards to the added cell at the end of row 3; then diagonally downwards to the added cell at the bottom of column 3; and finally straight upwards to the top of column 3. 

[Edit 7/9/20: the published solution was different from this, starting in the SE blank cell and then proceeding NW to (3,3); S to the bottom of column 3; NE to the right end of row 3; and W to the blank cell at (3,6), considered to be the "north" cell.  I prefer my solution since the line ends up at the "north" edge of the grid.]

Letters that extend beyond the printed grid are in bold.  Added spaces are represented by the # symbol.  Redundant letters in the wordplay are underlined.

Across

1.  KNEADERS - def. "manipulative people", anag. of ASKED + N + R + E

6.  SLURS - def. "insults", P for L in SPURS

9.  FUSING - def. "Act of Union", creating a commotion = FUSSING 

11.  MANIA - def. "fanaticism", ROMANIA - R

12.  NAC#RE - def. "shiny coating", hidden in LAMINA CREATES

14.  OK#API - def. "browser", OK + API

16.  AT EASE - def. whole thing, ATE + A + USE

17.  TRIBALISM - def. "group loyalty", (BALT + IS) in TRIM

19.  INC#UL#CA#TED - def. "brainwashed", anag. of CULT CAN DIE

21.  CHILDCARE - def. "responsibility for young people", L and CHAR in CHIDE

24.  VIRAGO - def. "Amazon", (RAG + O) in VIE

28.  HIT#CH - def. "couple", HIT + CH

29.  AZ#YME - def. "unleavened bread", anag. of (MAIZE - I + Y)

30.  SPORT - def. "fun", OR in SPAT

31.  PLAICE - def. "accompaniment for chips", anag. of SPECIAL

32.  TASTE - double def.

33.  EXORCIST - cryptic def.

 

Down

1.  INFANT - def. "at early developmental stage", IN + FAN + T

2.  NAS#TI#C - def. "unrelated to direction of stimulus", anag. of (ACTIONS - O)

3.  DIRE - def. "dreadful", R in DIET

4.  GENERA - def. "groups", GENERAL - L

5.  OSMOTIC - def. "associated with diffusion of fluid", M in (OS + OTIC)

6.  SAKE - def. "cause", treacherous person = SNAKE

7.  ULN#A - def. "body part", hidden in BEAUTIFUL NANNY

8.  TRAPEZE - def. "apparatus", (rev. of ART) + P + homophone of "ease"

10.  G#AL#LO#P - def. "fast pace", OP after GALL

13.  CIRCUIT - def. "way round", CI + anag. of (I + COURT)

15.  ASHTRAY - def. "receptacle", (SHUT - U) in (ARRAY)

18.  M#AL#ICE - def. "spite", LI in MACE

19.  NOVI SAD - def. "Balkan city", VISA in NOD

20.  LIGHTER - def. "one fires", BLIGHTER without first letter

22.  DIALOG - def. "Trump's speech", rev. of (GO + LAID)

23.  ENMESH - def. "catch", anag. of (HORSEMEN - OR)

25.  R#OTI - def. "sandwich", EROTIC without first & last letters

26.  ACRE - def. "division of land", ACT + RE

27.  CZAR - def. "leader" - Z in anag. of ARCH



 

 



Wednesday, 3 June 2020

Reply to mattd

This is a verbatim copy of a private message that I sent to user "mattd" on the Digital Spy forums in response to a forum post he'd made the previous day in the thread "News Corp to launch Times Radio". The quoted text is from mattd.

Companies invest in brands so they can lead markets and have a better chance of extracting more money from consumers - this may be making people buy KP Nuts every week, rather than similar own brands, or by being able to charge a premium for a product or service.

Agreed, although I don't like that term "extracting".  Makes it sound like a form of torture.

With The Times, you can buy it never, occasionally or all the time. You can consume a print product (sold through an intermediary like a newsagent or direct) or you can get some of a digital product free (a couple of articles or a podcast) direct from them. There's a variety of price points for sold products, but they'd like to get you on a subscription, because lots of people get used to it as a utility and don't end up unsubscribing.

OK.

If they do get bored of it, the effort to unsubscribe etc, will at least gain them a few more months of you paying.

Don't you think it's rather dishonest to take money from people for something they don't actually want?

If you're buying a paper and get bored, the money dries up straight away.

True, but it can work both ways.  For instance you might get Telegraph readers who get bored of their regular paper and one day decide to switch to the Times instead.  Casual purchases must make up a significant proportion of their income.

If a customer remains happy, likes getting the product etc, then they'll continue subscribing.

Indeed.

Brands aren't just the product. If they were I'd probably be more happy with my own brand nuts rather than KP.

A lot of people are.  I mostly buy own-brand products because they're cheaper than the branded alternative.  When you're on a low income your priorities can be rather different.

Brands imbue value to a product. Paying loads of money for a Rolex isn't just about having a good watch, it's about being a Rolex owner too. "Oh, we shop at Waitrose" is more than just "I like Waitrose products".

Yes, it means you're a terrible snob!

Generating subscribers to The Times is about encouragement.

The first lot of subscribers are partly value customers. I get the product anyway, subscribing and getting a package makes it cheaper for me.

As I mentioned earlier, this contradicts something you said further down the article.[*]  Can you clarify whether you're actually a Times subscriber or not please?

The second lot are people who get the digital product because it works for them and their life. Both these groups are the easy ones, you don't really need to sell to them - you just communicate the value.

Indeed.

The third lot are occasionals. I get the Sunday Times, sometimes the Daily, I look at articles people link to, I get annoyed that the paywall sometimes boots me out for reaching the max number of articles.

[*]This bit.

The fourth group are people who know what The Times is, are generally positive towards what it does, look at articles online/maybe listen to a podcast.

You can't look at Times articles online if you don't subscribe - the whole paper's behind a paywall.  (It's not like some others where there's a quota of free articles.)

The job for group three is pushing them over the subscription edge, the job with group four is turning them into group three and moving them down the funnel.

That makes sense - they want to get casual buyers and turn them into subscribers.  I still don't see how launching a radio station is going to make much difference though - the paper itself contains frequent ads encouraging readers to take out subscriptions.  It might make a little bit of difference, because customers will hear the ads on the radio as well as reading them in the paper.  But I think News UK is massively over-estimating the effect the station will have.

The more you know about the product, the more you feel positive towards the brand, the more it talks to you as an individual, the more likely you are to consume more Times products and then the more likely you are to subscribe.

OK.

Done well, the radio station will help Times-ify more people in group three and four. It may also even attract some new people into group 4 too.

I'm not entirely sure what "Times"-ification is.

[section on phone networks deleted]

It'll be the same for The Times. All their marketing, sponsorship, ads, events, podcasts and now the radio, are about helping to acquire customers and turn them into recurring revenue. Then the output - print, digital, events podcasts and now the radio - will be about keeping you closer to the brand to stop churn - ie unsubscribing.

Indeed.  I suppose you can argue that if Times readers have got a radio station to listen to as well as a paper to read, they're less likely to switch to another paper.

But that's still more about keeping existing customers than attracting new ones.

[section on Waitrose deleted]

Will it work? Who knows. Not all marketing is successful. The strategy though is pretty standard.

After all that, we appear to be in agreement!  You don't know if it'll work and neither do I.

Tuesday, 5 May 2020

A crack at a barred crossword

Inquisitor 1645: Billet-doux by Eclogue

Although I've been doing cryptic crosswords for about forty years now, I've always steered clear of those "barred" or "themed" puzzles that you get in some of the weekend newspapers, like Azed in the Observer or Enigmatic Variations in the Sunday Telegraph.  I'm old enough to remember the Listener crosswords when they were actually in the Listener magazine and I used to be completely awestruck by them - I used to think I was doing well if I understood the preamble!  Even when I saw the solution I was usually none the wiser.  (Although they did have an occasional "cross-number" variant which I successfully solved once or twice - I don't know if it still exists.)

Anyway, like many others I've recently had more time on my hands than usual, and the weekend before last I decided to tackle the Inquisitor (1644) in the Saturday i newspaper.  To my surprise, I found it relatively easy, perhaps because only six of the answers had to be "doctored", and so it was mostly like completing a normal cryptic until the twist at the end, which I worked out relatively quickly.

Buoyed up by this, I decided to tackle last weekend's puzzle.  In some ways I wish I hadn't!  I finally managed to complete it after reading the relevant thread on the Crossword Help forum, but it was still a struggle after taking all their hints into account.  As there are no prizes on offer at the moment, I thought it might be OK to publish the answers but was advised not to until 12th May.  I'm fairly certain they're all right but there are still a number that I don't understand properly.  I've put the omitted letter(s) in bold.

Across

1SPLICE - presumably P in "slice", but why "groom" for "slice"?
6.  IPSO FACTO - very cleverly hidden in "clips of Act One".  (By the way, why do barred puzzles not enumerate individual words?)
12.  MACRO - "MA" for "master" and then the initials of "command running others".  I assume this is an "&lit" referring to computer macros.
14.  RIMOUS - "I'm" in "rouse" without the final letter.  The first of many obscure words that seem to be a staple of this type of puzzle - an alternative form of "rimose", meaning "having a surface covered with cracks, fissures or crevices".
15.  HOUDINI - anagram of "hid in OU".  Nice!
16.  NONET - "no net".  I'm sure I've seen this before.
19.  PRUNE - "run" in "PE".
20.  PLEBE - "pleb" plus the first letter of "excoriated".  Not one I'd come across before - a US term meaning "newly entered cadet or freshman".
22.  THORIA - anagram of "hot air".  I'd come across the element "thorium" but not this term, which is an alternative name for thorium dioxide.
23.  PRESIDIA - I presume this is most of "reside" in "Pia".  "Pia" is a female name meaning "devout", although I think it's a slight stretch to use "devout female" in this way.  "Presidia" is the plural of "Presidium", which was the supreme ruling committee of the Soviet Union - but as there was only ever one Presidium, can it really be said to have a plural?
25.  NACELLE - "cell" in "nae".  Another new one for me - "a streamlined casing on the outside of an aircraft or motor vehicle".
26.  SLIPS - most of "spill" backwards plus "s" for "saint".
29.  RULER - "rule" plus "R".
32.  GUITEAU - the first of several answers that I cribbed from the forum.  It appears to be "guilt" without the "l" plus "EAU", the vehicle registration for Uganda.  I hadn't heard of him and was only dimly aware of James Garfield, the US president whom he assassinated in 1881.
34.  BARBEQUE - "bar" plus "qu" in "bee".  I really don't like this alternative spelling of "barbecue" but it was the only one that fitted the wordplay, and was clearly needed for the border quotation.
36.  THRONG - "Th" plus "wrong" without "w".
38.  EMEUS - "em" plus "EU" plus "s".  I thought this was an error when I first saw it but it seems to be an archaic spelling of "emus".
39.  INDRI - "in" plus "DRI", but can "belonging to" really be taken as a definition of "in"?  I'd never heard of this creature, which is one of the world's largest living lemurs.
40.  TREMA - hidden in "theatre manager", but I really don't like "staying" as an indicator of a hidden word.  Nor do I understand "opening" as the definition - I only know "tréma" as a diacritical mark used over the top of French vowels.
43.  OSSIA - anagram of "Oasis".  I actually did know this term, which is an old Italian word for "or", but only because I was once a musician!
44.  SLAINTE - anagram of "entails".  I also knew this Gaelic drinking toast - is it commonly used elsewhere?
45.  DENTELLE - cribbed this straight from the forum without really understanding it.  French term for "lace" which I'd never heard in English.
46.  TISRI - initials of "take it slowly" plus "RI".  I'd come across this month in the Hebrew calendar before but only seen it spelled "Tishri".
47.  DISSENTED - "Dis" (roman name for Hades) plus "sent" plus "ed".
48.  STRAYS - "R" in "stays", but why "transactions" for "R"?  "R" meaning "take" (as in a doctor's prescription) is reasonably common in crosswords but I don't think I've seen it as a noun - certainly not a plural.

Down

1.  SCHLEPPS - "EP" in "LP" in "sch" plus "S" for "society".
2.  PROGERIA - looked this up after getting a big hint from the forum, and didn't really understand it.  It's a disease that makes children age before their time.
3.  BLUDE - "lud" (for "lord") inside "be".  I assume it's an allusion to the old poem about "drinking the blude-red wine" but it's surely stretching things to give "Scottish claret" as a definition - the king wasn't actually drinking blood!
4.  SINIC - sounds like "Cynic", which is a type of philosopher alongside its more usual definition.  I'd come across the combining form "Sino-" for "Chinese" but not this adjective, although I'd heard "Sinitic".
5.  CANAPE - cribbed from forum and don't think I'd have got it otherwise.  "Can" is the Texan ass, "ape" is stupid.
6.  INCITED - "cit" in an anagram of "dine".  "Cit" is an obsolete derogatory term for a townsman which I actually guessed from the clue, but wouldn't have known otherwise.
7.  SOBERING - nice anagram of "Gisborne".
8.  ORIENTAL - anagram of "relation", although I'm not sure about "another" as anagram indicator.  In fact I got this before 4 because I knew 4 had to be something vaguely Chinese!
9.  FINES HERBES - "fine" (the French word, referring to high quality brandy) plus "sherbets" (Australian slang term for beers) minus "t" (from "tang").  I wasn't sure about this specific meaning of "fine" but guessed it anyway.  I think I knew "sherbets" just from chatting to Australians!
10.  CONSOLUTE - neat anagram of "lose count".  Didn't previously know the word but managed to guess it.
11.  OSTEAL - "OS" (oversize) plus "teal" (duck).  Even with the hint on the forum I don't quite get this - "osteal" is defined as "relating to bone or the skeleton", and I don't see where the anvil comes into it.
13.  CRYPTIC - I presume "cry" plus "pt" plus the initials of "in country".  Is "cry" a term for a pack of hounds?
17.  EMAIL - cribbed from forum.  Reversal of "Liam" (an Irish form of William, apparently) plus "E" for "European".
21.  ESSENTIALS - "Essen" (German city) plus anagram of "tails".
24.  EPITOMISTS - "pit" (bed) plus "o" (over) plus "mist" (?rack), all inside "ES" for "El Salvador".  I don't get "rack" for "mist", and the main word was new to me - apparently an archaic definition of "epitomize" was "summarize", so "they shorten" could just about be taken as a brief definition of the whole thing.
27.  MAGDALEN - anagram of "lead G [for good] man", &lit.  Nice clue although some might quibble about the slightly indirect anagram - it's a reference to Mary Magdalen in the Bible.
28.  MURRHINE - "rum" backwards plus "Rhine".   Another completely unfamiliar word, and I'm not sure if "precious material" is even a correct definition - it's listed as an adjective meaning "made of the stone or material called murrha by the Ancient Romans".  As a noun (normally spelt "murrine") it means "a glass mosaic cane made by fusing together layers of coloured glass".

30.  FLUENTLY - anagram of "net fully", which took me much longer than expected!
31.  RESCUERS - "res" (reserve) plus "Cu" (copper) plus initials of "economic retention stock".  Hadn't come across "res" this way before but it's not too unexpected.
33.  LURES - "Ur" in "les" - two old crossword staples!  (Think it was my first to solve.)
34.  BAVINS - "av" in "bins".  This word for "bundles of firewood" was completely unknown to me and it was the only clue I got wrong first time, thinking it must be "staves".
35.  ANTLERED - cribbed the answer to this, although it parses easily as "ant" plus "ER" inside "led".  Don't quite see "bearing weapons" as a definition though.
36.  HOODED - even after reading the hints on the forum I didn't get this until nearly the end.  I took "hod" for "blowpipe" on trust but why "ode" for "energy" - or have I misunderstood?
37.  DRAILS - "d" (old penny) plus "rails".  Didn't know the word and thought I'd made a mistake when I saw it was a term from fishing, but apparently there's a second definition of "a perforated iron projecting from the beam of a plough to which the horses are hitched".
41.  MUIST - this has got to be the most obscure one of the lot, both in the wordplay and the definition.  I assume it's "I" inside "must", but why does "in a frenzy" indicate "must"?  The word itself is defined on Scrabble Solver as "to powder (to reduce to fine dust-like particles)", but I can't corroborate it anywhere else, and God knows where the Gorbals come into it.
42.  ANGER - anagram of "enrage" without its initial "e".  A neat little "&lit" clue to end with.

Quotation

I discovered from the forum that the quotation was in French, and I'm very glad I knew this as I doubt whether I'd ever have got it otherwise.  To make matters worse, there appear to be multiple versions of it.  The version required appears to be as follows, with the omitted words in italics:

L'absence est à l'amour ce qu'est au feu le vent - Il éteint le petit, il allume le grand.

from Histoires Amoureuses des Gaules (1665) by Bussy-Rabutin, although there are also apparently versions beginning with "la distance..." and other variations.  A rough literal translation might be "absence is to love what the wind is to fire - it puts out the small and lights up the big".  I have no knowledge whatsoever of the author, the work or the context - should I?

And so, at the end of it all, it appears that what I have to do is delete the letters PETIT in the middle of the fifth line and highlight the letters GRAND in the middle of the ninth.  A bit of an anticlimax I'd say! 



Sunday, 1 March 2020

The 61-day perennial calendar

There have been many different proposals for reform of the calendar to simplify the relationship between dates and weekday names - notably the World Calendar proposed in 1930 - but I don't think I've seen this one before.  It has a number of unusual features which mean it'd be unlikely to be adopted in practice, but I think it's an interesting idea.

A calendar year is either 365 or 366 days long.  Our current calendar assumes 365 days as the default and inserts an extra day in leap years, but what happens if we assume 366 days as the default instead?  One advantage of 366 is that it is exactly divisible by 6, which allows the year to be divided into six identical periods of 61 days each.  (We'll see how to deal with the missing day in common years later on.)

61 days can be further divided into one month of 30 days and one month of 31 days.  Let's assume this pattern throughout the year, so that the odd months (Jan, Mar, May, Jul, Sep, Nov) are all 30 days long and the even months (Feb, Apr, Jun, Aug, Oct, Dec) are all 31 days long.  This is obviously a slight change from the current pattern, although the months August to December are unchanged.  But it's more regular than the current pattern, and there are only two possible lengths instead of four as at present.

It would also be convenient to divide this 61-day period into an exact number of weeks.  Clearly this is impossible if the weeks are all the same length, since 61 is prime.  But why not introduce variable week lengths as well as variable month lengths?  If we allow six-day weeks as well as the conventional seven-day weeks, then we can have two six-day weeks and seven seven-day weeks in each 61-day period, making a total of nine weeks (or 54 weeks in a year).  Therefore I propose omitting two Mondays in each period of nine weeks, shortening the working week to four days.

Two short weeks out of nine is a rather awkward pattern, though.  It would be rather neater if the four-day working week came round on a regular basis - let's say once every three weeks.  So I propose further that one Monday in each nine-week period should be declared a holiday.  To keep it simple, let's start each nine-week period on a Monday, and always make the first day a holiday.  This gives rise to the following pattern, with non-working days in boldface:

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Odd months 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(Jan, Mar, May, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Jul, Sep, Nov) 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
1 2 3 4
Even months 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
(Feb, Apr, Jun, 12 13 14 15 16 17
Aug, Oct, Dec) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

This calendar may look strange at first, but it has some interesting properties:
  • The pattern of working weeks is completely regular - one four-day week followed by two five-day weeks, all year round.  
  • There are six regularly spaced three-day weekends throughout the year, with no need for any additional holidays beyond the one on the first of odd months (but see below).  In particular New Year's Day and May Day automatically become holidays in this calendar.
  • The number of working days per year is 252 - more or less the same as at present when bank holidays are taken into account.
  • There are always exactly 21 working days per month.
  • There is a transparent relationship between the date and the weekday name.  For example, any date ending in a 2 must fall on a Tuesday or a Friday; in a 3, Wednesday or Saturday; and so on.  Apart from the holiday Mondays on the 1st of alternate months, dates ending in 1 fall on a Thursday or a Sunday.
This is a secular rather than a religious calendar, and no attempt has been made to accommodate the seven-day cycle of Christianity and other major faiths; nor does it take account of traditional holidays like Christmas and Easter.  But it would be possible to declare additional holiday Mondays if needed, creating extra four-day working weeks outside the regular cycle.  In particular, since December 25th always falls on a Monday in this calendar, it would be relatively straightforward to keep Christmas on its existing date - in fact easier than in the current calendar, where the weekday changes from one year to the next!

All the above presumes a year of 366 days, of course.  How should we deal with the three years out of four (plus years like 2100 in the Gregorian calendar) which are only 365 days long?

To avoid losing any of the dates in the year (which would cause problems with birthdays among other things), I propose combining two dates into one - perhaps the 28th and 29th of December, the last two workdays of the year.  For legal purposes, the date would change at midday, so 11.59am on Thursday 28th would be followed by 12 noon on Friday 29th.  There may be better alternatives though.

Obviously the above arrangements will take some getting used to - in particular the organizers of events that regularly take place on a Monday will have to deal with the fact that there are now only 42 Mondays per year, of which six are holidays.  On the other hand, there are now 54 weekends a year rather than 52 - surely an improvement?




Friday, 23 February 2018

More mental multiplication

In my last post I described a way of multiplying any two two-digit numbers using the difference of two squares method. I find it useful, but it has the drawback that you have to memorize the first 25 perfect squares, not all of which are easy for everyone to remember.  It also isn't very useful when you're multiplying an odd number by an even one.

I've been thinking about an alternative method that avoids both of these drawbacks.  It can be thought of as a generalization of the difference of two squares method.  I don't think I've seen it described in detail anywhere, although it may have similarities with some of the techniques used in so-called Vedic Maths, which I've only recently become familiar with.  It works best when the two numbers are reasonably close together.

It's best illustrated with an example, say 17 x 28.

Imagine the two numbers at the ends of a regular linear scale, as on a ruler, and imagine a movable marker at each end.  Push the two markers simultaneously towards each other at the same rate until one of them is on a round number.  So the left-hand marker moves three units right to 20, and the right-hand marker moves three units left to 25.

Now multiply these two numbers together: 20 x 25 = 500 (double 25 and add a zero).

Now look at the position of either of the markers relative to the end of the scale.  It doesn't matter which marker you use, although the one on the round number will probably be easier to calculate with.  20 - 17 = 3, and 28 - 20 = 8, so the marker is 3 units from one end and 8 units from the other.

Now multiply these two numbers together: 3 x 8 = 24.

Finally subtract from the earlier total: 500 - 24 = 476.  And that's the answer.

But what if there's no conveniently situated round number between the two original numbers?  Then you can pull the markers outwards, away from each other.  In this case you need to imagine the number line extending beyond the ends of the original scale, and the final step requires addition rather than subtraction.

Example: 22 x 29.  Pull the left-hand marker two units left to 20, and the right-hand marker two units right to 31.

20 x 31 = 620 (by doubling 31 and adding a zero).

The left-hand marker is 2 units from one end (22-20 = 2) and 9 units from the other (29-20 = 9).

2 x 9 = 18.

Add because you pulled outwards: 620 + 18 = 638.

Of course, these examples hinge on the fact that 20 is a reasonably easy number to multiply by mentally, but it works with other multipliers.  Try it with 26 x 33:

Push the markers three units inwards, to 29 and 30.
29 x 30 = (30 x 30) - 30 = 900 - 30 = 870
3 x 4 = 12 (33 - 30 = 3, 30 - 26 = 4)
870 - 12 = 858

Or 32 x 39:  push outwards to 31 and 40.
31 x 40 = 1240 (double 31 to 62, double again to 124, add a zero)
1 x 8 = 8 (40 - 39 = 1, 40 - 32 = 8)
1240 + 8 = 1248

As with the other technique, there will eventually come a point where it's more trouble than it's worth, but I think it's useful for relatively small numbers.

Saturday, 17 February 2018

Mental multiplication


Here's a technique that I sometimes use for multiplying two-digit numbers in my head.  It has the advantage that you don't have to use most of the multiplication table at all - just addition and subtraction, and division by 2.  It's based on the well-known difference of two squares formula from algebra, but you don't need to know any algebra to apply the technique.  It has similarities with the old quarter squares method but is explicitly designed for mental calculation.  I'm not aware of anyone else who uses this exact method.

You will need to know the perfect squares up to 25 x 25.   This isn't as daunting as it may sound, as the traditional multiplication table takes you up to 12 x 12, and there are a number of mnemonics that can help you remember most of the rest.

The "pivot" rule

As a simple example, suppose you want to multiply 7 by 13.  (For the moment, we'll stick to examples where both numbers are odd, or both are even.)

Imagine a seesaw.  At the two ends of the seesaw are the two numbers you want to multiply.  In between the two numbers there's a regular scale, as on a ruler.  The "pivot" number is the halfway point between the ends of the seesaw.   So if you have 7 at one end and 13 at the other, the pivot will be 10.  You might be able to spot this straight off, but if not you can calculate it by adding the end numbers together and dividing by 2; 7 + 13 = 20, and 20/2 = 10.

Now calculate the distance from the pivot to either end of the seesaw: 10 - 7 = 3, or 13 - 10 = 3.  It doesn't matter which end you choose.

Now calculate the square of the pivot: 10 x 10 = 100
and the square of the distance from the pivot: 3 x 3 = 9 
Finally subtract the second from the first: 100 - 9 = 91.

And that's your answer!

In this case it was relatively easy because the squares of 10 and 3 are well known.  The key to this technique is knowing how to compute the square of any two-digit number.  Fortunately, you only need to know the squares of the first 25. 


Memorizing the first 25 perfect squares

The first twelve perfect squares are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100, 121 and 144.

13 x 13 = 169 - anagram of the next one
14 x 14 = 196 - anagram of the previous one
15 x 15 = 225 - all squares of numbers ending in 5 end in "25" (cf. 25 squared)
16 x 16 = 256 - 2 to the power of 8 (crops up a lot in computing)
17 x 17 = 289
18 x 18 = 324 - "graph" of digits dips down 1 and up 2 (cf. 24 squared)
19 x 19 = 361
20 x 20 = 400 - easily derived from 2 x 2 = 4 and 10 x 10 = 100
21 x 21 = 441 - 12 squared backwards (21 is 12 backwards)
22 x 22 = 484 - think 11 squared = 121, times 4 (also note 22 and 484 are both palindromic)
23 x 23 = 529
24 x 24 = 576 - "graph" of digits dips up 2 and down 1 (cf. 18 squared)
25 x 25 = 625 - all squares of numbers ending in 5 end in "25" (or think of old 625-line TV)

I don't know any easy way of memorizing 289, 361 and 529.  My old school was near a road called the A361 but that's unlikely to be much help to anyone else!   Hopefully you can find your own personal connections for the numbers.

When you've mastered these you should be able to multiply any two odd or two even numbers whose sum is 50 or less.

Multiplying two odd or two even numbers whose sum is 50 or less

As an example, try 14 x 22.

The pivot is 18.  (14 + 22 = 36; 36/2 = 18.)
The distance to the pivot is 4 (18-14 or 22-18).
18 squared is 324, and 4 squared is 16.
So the answer is 324 - 16 = 308.

Another example: 17 x 27.

The pivot is 22.  (17 + 27 = 44; 44/2 = 22.)
The distance to the pivot is 5 (22-17 or 27-22).
22 squared is 484, and 5 squared is 25.
So the answer is 484 - 25 = 459.

Try these for yourself (solutions in white, with method):

13 x 27     Pivot = 20; distance = 7; answer = 400 - 49 = 351
14 x 34     Pivot = 24; distance = 10; answer = 576 - 100 = 476
17 x 21    Pivot = 19; distance = 2; answer = 361 - 4 = 357
18 x 28   Pivot = 23; distance = 5; answer = 529 - 25 = 504


Deriving the next 25 perfect squares

Once you feel comfortable with the first 25 perfect squares, there's a simple rule that allows you to derive the next 25, from 26 to 50.  To explain it we can use the seesaw analogy again.  Call the number you want to square the "base" number.

Imagine a seesaw with the pivot at 25 and the base number at one end.  The number at the other end will be 50 minus the base number.  For instance, if you want to square 33, then 17 will be at the other end.

Now square this number: 17 x 17 = 289 (from the list above)
Now take the distance from the pivot to one end of the seesaw and multiply by 100: 8 x 100 = 800
Add these two together: 289 + 100 = 1089

Another example: find 42 x 42.
Pivot is 25, 8 is at opposite end.  Distance is 17.
So 42 squared is 8^2 + (17 x 100) = 64 + 1700 = 1764

A few for practice:

49 x 49    1 at opposite end.  Distance is 24.  1^2 + (24 x 100) = 1 + 2400 = 2401  
29 x 29    21 at opposite end.  Distance is 4.  21^2 + (4 x 100) = 441 + 400 = 841 
39 x 39    11 at opposite end.  Distance is 14.  11^2 + (14 x 100) = 121 + 1400 = 1521  
36 x 36     14 at opposite end.  Distance is 11.  14^2 + (11 x 100) = 196 + 1100 = 1296  

If you practise using the squares from 26 to 50 often enough you'll find that the values start to come automatically after a while.  Here's the full list for reference:

26 x 26 = 676  ( = 576 + 100)                  38 x 38 = 1444 ( = 144 + 1300)
27 x 27 = 729  ( = 529 + 200)                  39 x 39 = 1521 ( = 121 + 1400)
28 x 28 = 784  ( = 484 + 300)                  40 x 40 = 1600 ( = 100 + 1500)
29 x 29 = 841  ( = 441 + 400)                  41 x 41 = 1681 ( = 81 + 1600)
30 x 30 = 900  ( = 400 + 500)                  42 x 42 = 1764 ( = 64 + 1700)
31 x 31 = 961  ( = 361 + 600)                  43 x 43 = 1849 ( = 49 + 1800)
32 x 32 = 1024 ( = 324 + 700)                 44 x 44 = 1936 ( = 36 + 1900)
33 x 33 = 1089 ( = 289 + 800)                 45 x 45 = 2025 ( = 25 + 2000)
34 x 34 = 1156 ( = 256 + 900)                 46 x 46 = 2116 ( = 16 + 2100)
35 x 35 = 1225 ( = 225 + 1000)               47 x 47 = 2209 ( = 9 + 2200)
36 x 36 = 1296 ( = 196 + 1100)               48 x 48 = 2304 ( = 4 + 2300)
37 x 37 = 1369 ( = 169 + 1200)               49 x 49 = 2401 ( = 1 + 2400)
                                                                 50 x 50 = 2500            Distance is 11.  14^2 + (11 x 100) = 196 + 1100 = 1296

Multiplying two odd or two even numbers whose sum is 100 or less

So now you have enough knowledge to multiply any two odd or even numbers whose sum is 100 or less!  Here's an example: 44 x 24.  You might find it difficult to hold all the necessary information in your head at first, so write down the pivot if necessary.

The pivot is 34, and the distance is 10.
34 squared is 1156 (either from the list above or by doing 16^2 + 900).
10 squared is 100, so the answer is 1156 - 100 = 1056.

Another example: 47 x 29.

Pivot = 38, distance = 9.
38 squared is 1444 ( = 12^2 + 1300), 9 squared is 81.
Answer is 1444 - 81 = 1363.

Practice examples:

38 x 22    Pivot = 30, distance = 8.  30^2 = 900, 8^2 = 64, answer = 836
37 x 27    Pivot = 32, distance = 5.  32^2 = 1024, 5^2 = 25, answer = 999
46 x 32    Pivot = 39, distance = 7.  39^2 = 1521, 7^2 = 49, answer = 1472
63 x 31    Pivot = 47, distance = 16.  47^2 = 2209, 16^2 = 256, answer = 1953

You probably found with the last example that the numbers were quite a long way from the pivot and it was difficult to do the final subtraction in your head, which is a limitation to this as a purely mental technique.  Nevertheless you can always write the final step down - the number of operations you need to do is still fewer than in conventional long multiplication.


Multiplying an odd number by an even number

If you've got this far you're almost certainly shouting "Well that's all very well if they're both odd or even, but what if there's one of each?"

There are various ways of dealing with this, but the simplest is to subtract 1 from the higher number, perform the calculation as normal, and then add the lower number.  So for 26 x 37 you'd do 26 x 36, which is 31^2 - 5^2 = 961 - 25 = 936, and finally add 26 to give 962.

Another example: for 33 x 42, calculate 33 x 41 = 37^2 - 4^2 = 1369 - 16 = 1353, and add 33 to give 1386.

Try the following:

13 x 18    13 x 17 = 15^2 - 2^2 = 225 - 4 = 221 and 221 + 13 = 234
16 x 29    16 x 28 = 22^2 - 6^2 = 484 - 36 = 448 and 448 + 16 = 464
23 x 32    23 x 31 = 27^2 - 4^2 = 729 - 16 = 713 and 713 + 23 = 736
17 x 44    17 x 43 = 30^2 - 13^2 = 900 - 169 = 731 and 731 + 17 = 748


Multiplying any two two-digit numbers

All that remains now is to learn the technique for squaring two-digit numbers between 50 and 100, and in theory you should be able to multiply any two two-digit numbers. The sum of any two two-digit numbers is always less than 200, so the pivot will always be less than 100.  You might find that the final subtraction becomes rather unwieldy with the higher numbers and the method is no longer useful.  Nevertheless I'll include this section for completeness.  There are different methods for numbers above and below 75.

Squaring a number from 51 to 75: subtract 50 from the number, take the square and then add on the original number less 25, multiplied by 100.  Note that the number of hundreds you add on is the "pivot" between the number and the number less 50.

E.g. for 63 squared: 63 -50 = 13, 13 squared = 169 and add (63 - 25) x 100 = 3800 to give 3969.
You might find it useful to imagine a seesaw with 63 at one end and 13 at the other; the pivot will be at 38, so you add on 38 x 100 to 13 squared.

Another example: for 72 squared, 72 - 50 = 22, 22 squared = 484 and add (72 - 25) x 100 = 4700 to give 5184.  (47 is the "pivot" between 22 and 72.)

Squaring a number from 76 to 100: subtract the number from 100, take the square and add on 100 less twice the original number, multiplied by 100.  In this case you might imagine a seesaw with the pivot at 50, and the number of hundreds you add on is the entire length of the seesaw.

E.g. for 93 squared, think 100 - 93 = 7.  The length of the seesaw is 93 - 7 = 86.  So the answer is 7^2 + (86 x 100) = 49 + 8600 = 8649.
Another example: for 78 squared, 100 - 78 = 22, length = 78 - 22 = 56, answer is 22^2 + 5600 = 484 + 5600 = 6084.

Here's a sample multiplication sum using these squares: 57 x 79.
The pivot is 68.  68 squared is 18^2 + 4300 = 4624.
The distance is 11, and 11^2 = 121.  So the answer is 4624 - 121 = 4503.

Another example: 62 x 92.
The pivot is 77.  77 squared = 23^2 + 5400 = 5929.
The distance is 15, and 15^2 = 225.  So the answer is 5929 - 225 = 5704.

If you dare, here are some examples to try:

56 x 74   Pivot = 65, distance = 9.  65^2 = 15^2 + 4000 = 4225, 9^2 = 81, answer 4144
67 x 81   Pivot = 74, distance = 7.  74^2 = 24^2 + 4900 = 5476, 7^2 = 49, answer 5427
81 x 97   Pivot = 89, distance = 8.  89^2 = 11^2 + 7800 = 7921, 8^2 = 64, answer 7857
66 x 86   Pivot = 76, distance = 10.  76^2 = 24^2 + 5200 = 5776, 10^2 = 100, answer 5676

Don't worry if you've given up by this point!   I don't find numbers of this size easy by this method either.  In practice I might use a variety of different techniques.  E.g. for 56 x 74 I might think

56 = 7 x 8
8 x 75 = 600 (6 is three-quarters of 8), so 56 x 75 = 7 x 600 = 4200
So 56 x 74 = 4200 - 56 = 4144

I hope some of this has been useful (or at least interesting) anyway!