if 3*2=46 2*5=104 4*3=68 then 4*7=?

The pattern is: a*b = (a*b) concatenated with (a*2). For 3*2: 3*2=6, 3*2=6, so 46. For 2*5: 2*5=10, 2*2=4, so 104. For 4*3: 4*3=12, 4*2=8, so 68. For 4*7: 4*7=28, 4*2=8, so 288, not 148. Wait, let me re-examine: 3*2=6 and 3*2=6 gives 46? That's strange. Let me try another interpretation: perhaps it's a*b = (a*b - a) concatenated with (a*b + a)? For 3*2: (6-3)=3, (6+3)=9, not 46. Let me try: a*b = (a*b/2) and (a*b)? No. The pattern might be: multiply a and b, then concatenate with (a*2). But 3*2=6, 3*2=6 gives 66, not 46. Let me reconsider: maybe the first digit is (a*b - 2)? For 3*2: 6-2=4, then 6 gives 46. For 2*5: 10-2=8, then 10 gives 810, not 104. This doesn't work. The actual pattern is likely: a*b = (a*b - a - b + something)... Let me just check: 4*7=28, and if we follow some pattern, maybe 148 is correct under some interpretation. However, based on standard logic, this pattern is unclear.