Quick!

[serebit@floss.social]

@infobeautiful 6×8 is 48, 7×6 is one that admittedly took me a few seconds...

[michael@westergaard.social]

The base part is it’s not 100% symmetrical along the diagonal

[om@witter.cz]

@infobeautiful
It is unclear in which order the coefficients were assigned (since the table is not symmetrical) and the 1x1 legend does not really help here

[kasperd@westergaard.social]

I noticed that as well and think that's an interesting result. The asymmetry tells us something about how kids learn to multiply, though I am not sure what that something is.

[falcennial@mastodon.social]

@infobeautiful why does 8×12 have a much lower than 12×8

[falcennial@mastodon.social]

@om @infobeautiful yeah. I took it as alphabetical order of axis x then y.

[michael@westergaard.social]

Multiplication of small numbers is pure memorization. So this tells us they learn one ordering more than the other.

[michael@westergaard.social]

I know I remember 6 * 8 = 48 as "both end in 8." That rule doesn't work for 8 * 6, making that a harder operation.

[wish@sk.unix.dog]

@infobeautiful@vis.social The most evil thing about this chart to me is that it's not symmetrical

[heckinchonker@mastodon.social]

@infobeautiful Is this suggesting that 10% of kids get 1x1 incorrect?

[rickyx@fosstodon.org]

@infobeautiful to master 7x8 you can reverse the whole equation:
56=7x8.
For my children it is easy to remember 5678 and now, no problem!

[johan@s.cafe]

@infobeautiful

Very strange. In which schools is it in which country? The multiplication table is usually learned at the age of 8-9, isn't it?

[hcf@infosec.exchange]

@johan @infobeautiful The infographics says 232 children were studied at Caddington School, possibly the one in the suburbs of London.