So-called “standard form.”
![](//static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20230320050250642-0312:S0025557200232646:S0025557200232646_inline1.gif?pub-status=live)
Method I have used with success as regards clearness and accuracy. (I believe this is Mr. Pendlebury’s arrangement.)
Ride. Put singles (or units) figure of multiplier under the last figure of multiplicand.
![](//static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20230320050250642-0312:S0025557200232646:S0025557200232646_inline2.gif?pub-status=live)
Arguments in favour of this second plan :
Instead of such a mechanical rule as Mr. Borchardt’s (p. 69, Borchardt’s ,Arithmetical Types and Examples), we get the continued use of the sound and fundamental rule of “putting each first figure of a partial product underneath the figure to which that partial product is due.” And this also corresponds to the method of algebraic multiplication.