No Abacus Handy? Use your hands.

Suppose you want to do some math, but you don't have an abacus handy. Oh, the horror! What do you do?

No problem! Your hands make a *great* two-digit soroban-type abacus. The four beads on the lower deck are your four fingers; the bead on the upper deck is your thumb, as illustrated in this diagram (with apologies for my terrible artwork):

So the numbers from one to nine look like:

To get two digits, you use your right hand for the ones, and your left for the tens. So, for example, let's look at a simple addition:

Once you know the abacus, doing this with your hands is pretty simple. It's definitely a limited technique, since you can't get past one hundred without using your toes, but it's a nifty trick, and it's easy to teach kids to do this for working out math problems. If you've got a kid who's a tactile thinker, it's amazing how much learning to do this can help them. I've seen kids who do paper math with many digits by working out subparts of the problem using this style of finger-abacus.

There's actually a whole Korean teaching method for math called something like chisan-bop. From what I understand, they build up on this quite a bit, to be able to do much more complicated stuff than just two-digit addition, but I haven't been able to find an english textbook on chisan-bop. All the english texts basically show what I just did above: the two-digit abacus on the fingers.

More like this

Arithmetic on the Abacus: Part 1
If you want to talk about mechanical computing tools, you can't ignore the abacus. It's the oldest computing tool in the world; and it's still very commonly used. It's also about as different from the slide rule as you could imagine. The abacus is really fundamentally an addition device; the slide…
Binary Fingermath
There is another way of doing math on your fingers, which gives you a much greater range of numbers, and which makes multiplication particularly easy. It's a bit more work to get used to than the finger abacus, but it has a lot less limitations. Someone in the comments of the finger-abacus post…
Division on the Abacus
Now we're going to try something challenging on the abacus: *division*. Like multiplication, abacus division is close to the way you'd do it on paper. But just like doing paper division is trickier than paper multiplication, abacus division is tricker than abacus multiplication. But the technique…
Square Root on the Abacus
Doing square root on the abacus is a lot like doing it on paper. The big difference? It's actually *easier* on the abacus. What I find pretty cool is that I'm a rank beginner at the abacus. I never actually tried to use one before I started writing these posts. But I can do that root *faster* on…

I've always been a fan of counting in binary on my fingers. It's not as easy as using your fingers like an abacus, and I wouldn't want to do any arithmetic, but you can't count a lot higher (above 1000 with no toes!)! It's possible to count in ternary on your fingers, too, but it requires significantly more dexterity than I can manage. :)

In one of the O'Reilly hacks books it has a section on chisan-bop.

I think it's Mind Performance Hacks. I'll edit when I get home if I'm wrong.

Nice demo, but the answer should be 63, not 53. Last step should add 3 not 2.

I remember it as a fad and infomercial fodder back in the late 70s and early 80s. I love abebooks for finding used books and sure enough, here are the two or three books published back then.

By justawriter (not verified) on 09 Oct 2006 #permalink

I remember the '80s Korean chisan-bop fad as well (well, not by name.) IIRC, the right hand was the same as hand-abacus, while the left hand went binary. From right to left: Th=10, In=20, Mi=40, Ri=80 and Pi=160; so the max result possible was 319. I don't remember any specifics beyond that (and don't even guarantee that I've remembered that very well.)

I can't do 8.. :(

I use binary finger-counting a lot. I need to practice more to get my addition better, but it works great for trying to simply count things. Being able to reach 30 on one hand has proven surprisingly useful. And though I don't usually have a need to count to 1000, the knowledge that I *can* using only my hands is pretty cool.

By Xanthir, FCD (not verified) on 10 Oct 2006 #permalink

You're not planning to correct the mistake ?

Quote:
Nice demo, but the answer should be 63, not 53. Last step should add 3 not 2.

Posted by: txjak | October 9, 2006 10:44 PM

By asinomasimple (not verified) on 10 Oct 2006 #permalink

asinomasimple:

Busy with the real job, haven't had time to get back and edit the post to make the correction. Will do when I have time.

Sorry for the delay in the correction, but the error was in an image file, and editing and uploading a corrected image takes a lot more time than just editing the text in movable type; since I'm up against deadline in my real job, I didn't have time to get to it until this morning.

My blog has more detail, but no pictures.