timestable.rb

# Andrews' CODE
def times_table(rows)    # <-- defines method and how many rows passed as argument
  1.upto(rows) do |x|    # <-- You start first loop with value x
    line = ""
    1.upto(rows) do |y|  # <-- begin 2nd (nested) loop with value y
      line += "#{x*y}\t" #  <-- x=1 therefore 1*1, 1*2, 1*3. When done x=2 2*1, 2*2, 2*3.... (x=3, 3*1, 3*2, 3*3...)
    end
  puts line
  end                    #  <-- incremement to the next x value
end

# The basics are, that you will increment an 'x' value and then run the entire 'y' loop. 
# Then you increase 'x' and then run the whole 'y' loop again. 
# An alternative looping system could be written without the 'line' variable:

1.upto(rows) do |x|
  1.upto(rows) do |y|
    print "#{ x * y }\t"
  end
  puts
end

# Take note of why the 'puts' is placed after the 'y' loop. 
# That's to give a line break after each row of values has been printed.

Your code is doing a little more than it needs to but I completely see where you're coming from, let's try to clear this up.

Try these examples in irb:
puts "Travis"; puts "Andrew"
print "Travis"; print "Andrew"

What you should notice in the output is that:
'puts' will print a value to screen and include a line break => "Travis" line break "Andrew"
'print' will print a value to screen with no line break at the end => "TravisAndrew"

Moving on...
When you add to the 'line' variable (string object) with the '+=' operator it concatenates (combines) the words. So what your 'y' loop is doing is adding x*y\t to the 'line' variable over and over again until the 'y' loop terminates. At the end of the 'y' loop you 'puts' that final 'line' variable which prints the row of numbers and puts a line break. Then x increments and it starts all over again.

What I did instead is just 'print' each value and after my 'y' loop I have an empty 'puts' that simply gives me a line break for my next row of numbers. Our approaches are virtually the same, but I just eliminated the need for the 'line' variable because we really don't need it.

Interesting. Your way is definitely better. Thanks for clearing that up. My line spacing was redundant with the \t.