Do you like any number?
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
Which, in my view, is probably the most important effect of our human notion of integers
(even if the system did not expand a level after 9, ie at 10 etc, the whole of integers still would be following this rule for 9. But that our system stops at a level following 9 does seem to show some intuitive or other insight, which was there not only in arab numerals but also (at least) Greek numerals since they also ended in 9 and then used a new symbol for 10,20...,100...1000 etc).
Bolded bit is very wrong. Add up a few numbers in a different base and test it for yourself. e.g. use base 6, and do 144 + 315 = 503. (That's 64 + 119 = 183 in decimal) Or base 12, where 18 + 36 = 52 (20 + 42 = 62 in decimal) Cast out your 9s and you get 0 + 0 = not 0. So either the answers are wrong, or the rule doesn't work.
It doesn't show any intuition or other insight. It only works with 9 because we use decimal. If we used hexadecimal, then it'd be casting out Fs (or possibly known as 'get the F out'
) instead of casting out 9s. If we had less fingers and ended up using base 8, then the method wouldn't work with 9, but would work with 7, and you'd be talking about how because our system stops at a level following 7, that shows some intuitive or other insight. Again, you can double check. Cast out the 5s in the first sum I wrote, or the 11s in the second.Bolded bit is very wrong. Add up a few numbers in a different base and test it for yourself. e.g. use base 6, and do 144 + 315 = 503. (That's 64 + 119 = 183 in decimal) Or base 12, where 18 + 36 = 52 (20 + 42 = 62 in decimal) Cast out your 9s and you get 0 + 0 = not 0. So either the answers are wrong, or the rule doesn't work.
It doesn't show any intuition or other insight. It only works with 9 because we use decimal. If we used hexadecimal, then it'd be casting out Fs (or possibly known as 'get the F out'
Thanks for your interest, but that is not at all what i meant there.
So there is no need from my viewpoint for my statement to be casted out as well ala 9 ps: but of course, if i write a note something of a "pi", and it was something linked to pi (eg pi radians) you have all reason to think i was just dead wrong. In this case, though, i just did not really mean to go on past the original semi-note
No, there's every reason to cast out what you wrote.
You're right, there are interesting things to discover, like that any number (in decimal) whose digits eventually add to 9 will be divisible by 9. And that if they add to 6, you'll get a remainder of 6 when dividing by 9.
But it doesn't happen because 9 is special. It doesn't happen because of some unconscious insight that made us pick the right base to use. It only happens because of the base we use. If we used a different base, there'd be a different number providing the same interesting results. You're taking an effect, and calling it an intuitive cause.
Things get more interesting once you know why they work, wrongly ascribing some magic property isn't needed to make stuff interesting. Particularly when it comes to maths.
You're right, there are interesting things to discover, like that any number (in decimal) whose digits eventually add to 9 will be divisible by 9. And that if they add to 6, you'll get a remainder of 6 when dividing by 9.
But it doesn't happen because 9 is special. It doesn't happen because of some unconscious insight that made us pick the right base to use. It only happens because of the base we use. If we used a different base, there'd be a different number providing the same interesting results. You're taking an effect, and calling it an intuitive cause.
Things get more interesting once you know why they work, wrongly ascribing some magic property isn't needed to make stuff interesting. Particularly when it comes to maths.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
For me it's the number 7 ! In my personal ID (really) last numbers are xxxxxxxxxx776 .... gawd dang ! It should be 777 ! I am a number short from being lucky I guess
For me it's the number 7 ! In my personal ID (really) last numbers are xxxxxxxxxx776 .... gawd dang ! It should be 777 ! I am a number short from being lucky I guess
A full number away, only in the case that the ID can be said to have its stop where the number stops
If the number continues (one way would be in decimal parts) then you may even tend to already end in 777 anyway.And that is only provided those numbers are forming a specific number without being also integers in some type of progression, cause then you are potentially pretty much spiralling towards the integer of 7(77) (,7777...).
Disappointed why?
I'm saying you're coming up with interesting rules about the number 9, and it gets more interesting when you discover why those rules work, and that they actually have nothing to do with the number 9 by itself, it just works for us because we use (9 + 1) as our base for counting in.
To summarise your few posts back on page 2:
-Here's this interesting property that works with the number 9.
-This property would still work even if our counting system didn't expand a level after 9
-Therefore arab numerals, greek numerals, they are showing some intuitive insight (and/or magic) by expanding a level after 9, the number that generates this interesting property.
First part is true. Second part is false. Conclusion is wrong.
I typed so much because I'm bored, because the way this actually works is interesting, because what you originally posted makes me think you misunderstand it, because I think if I can make you understand it, you'll find it more interesting.
pi, e, i, (sqrt 5 + 1)/2, they all have lots of interesting properties that they still have if you use a different base. 9 has some interesting properties that disappear entirely if you use a different base.
Thanks again, but we are still not communicating cause you stick to what you think i claimed. Looking forward to your other posts, though
Maybe someone's favorite number would be the n-th fibonacci for which it would be true that the position in the series that number is found at is a prime, and the number in that position can be written as the result of multiplication of primes which includes at least one prime appearing twice
(probably he won't have any favorite number then).
Maybe someone's favorite number would be the n-th fibonacci for which it would be true that the position in the series that number is found at is a prime, and the number in that position can be written as the result of multiplication of primes which includes at least one prime appearing twice
(probably he won't have any favorite number then).
Either I stuffed up c&p-ing what I bolded in the earlier quote, or the post I quoted meant something entirely different to what it actually said. It's not being obviously ridiculous like your post about terrible 90s TV shows was, and it reads to me like you were actually being serious. So I assumed you actually meant it. Hence my reply.
If I had a favourite number it'd be 1.6 and a bit, aka (sqrt 5 + 1)/2. Or 42.
Are you thinking of 42 as the number of rounds in the SEFBBL draft?
I want fractional rounds.
Symphony D.
Deity
3 or 8.
Ah, yes, natural numbers and/or integers, truly the most mysterious and controversial of number sets because of indeterminate forms.
Similar threads
- Locked
