I had it explained at a very early age as "three lots of three", and to imagine it like three boxes of three ice-creams. Treating the multiplication symbol as one would to indicate quantity in a list, thus calculating how many ice-creams there are.

Found the Brit! As an American I’d never heard the “lots of __” phrasing until I watched Numberblocks (a British show) with my kid…

Pharmaceuticals and other manufactured goods are sometimes referred to in 'lots' meaning a batch.

> Numberblocks

We don't live in the UK but our kids watch Numberblocks.

Our youngest started rattling off all kinds of number stuff which I know for sure she hasn't yet encountered in school.

Me: Wow ... how do you know that?

Her: Numberblocks!

Me: Umm ... OK!

I've never watched Numberblocks, but I do like to watch a good game of Numberwang!

That's Numberwang!

> Numberwang theme tune

I think you need to spend more time around six year olds ;)

My 6 year old nephew can do primes and I taught him to count and add in binary.

I'm not sure that HN readers-- a community that will disproportionately skew towards folks educated &/or employed in STEM fields-- are indicative of other people's contact with 6-year old kids.

The technique used by the Oregon public school system in the 80s went something like "Hand the child a 10x10 grid of numbers, then tell them, absent of any other context, that they must be memorized." I like your way better.

Ontario's 1990s curriculum was pretty awesome. The idea of dimension and sets were both introduced simultaneously and joined, using multiplication. Started in the 2nd grade and they just kept elaborating. Number lines and groups of items. (Tied it into geometry, too. Square numbers came up by at least 4th grade.) What is 3 x 3 but moving 3 units, 3 times in one dimension? Now, memorize these tables up to 12 x 12, you won't always have a calculator at hand.

> you won't always have a calculator at hand.

I mean, sure. I do though. I still blow minds when I put my iPhone calculator in scientific mode. Math education is important for many reasons. But teaching it as a practical survival skill using no tools does a disservice to the student. Either it is useful as a problem solving exercise or it is a practical skill that should take advantage of tools. "Just memorize this stuff" isn't useful beyond teaching people to memorize arbitrary things, which backfires into hating learning.

Nah. As somebody who ends up doing a ton of mental math, I think it's valuable. Yes, they should also learn how to use tools. But developing a feel for numbers is valuable, and I think that is much harder to do if one always relies on a calculator. (And yes, of course, this should be learned in a way that doesn't involve the kids hating it. But that's possible.)

Phrases like "you won't always have a calculator at hand" only serve to erode trust in the educator. It's simply not compelling, and for all practical intents and purposes is untrue. Even on backpacking trips I have a cell phone, even if it is off. If you believe mental math is useful then say that and explain the benefits. Students can smell a lie.

That sounds like an excellent thing to somebody who actually said "you won't always have a calculator at hand". Maybe you should find someone like that.

Are we in the same thread?

Yes, but I was not the person who said the thing you are objecting to.

Mathematics should be taught be mesmerization, not memorization.