I know, who would have thought math presented in a comic could be WRONG?! But it's bothering me enough to post this, so maybe all your math-inclined people can help me out.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1914#comic

When I try to use the system presented with 6x6, I get 216, not 36. There may also be other problem spots, but I'm too lazy to figure them out. 5x5, 8x8 and 9x9 definitely work though. Thoughts?

Yeah, according to that, 6x5=19 according to my understanding of that comic.
Some of the maths works out, but there seems to be a lot of holes, definitely not usable as a rule.
Wait, 6x6=28 according to my understanding... I don't get it

It took me a minute, but the first number you get back adding the two together represents a tens place. So if you get 5 for the first number, it's actually 50. With the second, if you get 10, then it would be 50 + 10, which is 60.

6x6 would be 1+1=2, thus 20, plus 4*4=16. So 20+16=36.

oh, yeah I skipped a bit there, even though I was working through it properly with the simpler ones.
buts 6x5 still seems false.
1=1, therefore 10, 4x5=20, therefore.... oooh, no that's 30. That worked.
Dammit, now I feel like a dumbass.

No, this actually works.

6*6:

1+1=2 which represents 20.
4*4=16

20+16=36.

You don't need to work it out to see it works, he shows a proof. Did you miss that part too?

If he questions it working he's probably also going to question any proof.

It's a comic. It was probably intended.

Edit: None the less they say "Polish Hand Magic"... The polish stereotype is they are dumb.

It works, it's correct, there's a proof which is also correct.

Where it gets me is when it says you can do it with smaller numbers by using 'negative fingers'. Can't get my head around that.

I saw the proof, but it confused me, and it felt very disconnected from the "applied math" the comic showed. I suck at math, except for geometry, where I can associate with visuals (even if the visuals aren't "accurate").

I see what the whole tens thing is about now, which I didn't get because I thought it was simply "first number then second number" not "first number as tens plus second number as self."