The Rule of Nines: The Surprising Mathematics Behind It

[sol2]

The Rule of Nines:The rule of n-1

I found this today, and I find it kind of extraordinary. Some involved might speak to it as a numerology, but what I find strange is Edwards Tellers take on it, and how such possibilties in any numerical system could have some foundation in it, that is logical.

How would such mathematics arise and one has to wonder about fractorial design, as the basis of elemental considerations and what chance is given to its framework from these ideas?

My interest in mathematics was soon discouraged. It so happened that we had a very good math teacher, who was a Communist. I remember having learned from him something that I never forget: the rule of nines. A simple point: you add up the numerals in a number, and if the original number was divisible by nine, then the sum of the figures also is. For instance, you take a number like 243. Two and four and three is nine. Therefore, 243 must be divisible by nine. Actually it is nine times 27. The rule is interesting because its so simple. What was really interesting is to us ten year-olds is that our math teacher proved it. The proof is not terribly difficult, but it was one of the first simple and not quite obvious mathematical proofs that I encountered. That actually was a little before I read Euler's Algebra.

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/tel0int-1


http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@247.afHqbbIs1e3.4@.1dde8936

I have always like to think there was certainty in the world, but I am constantly being reminded that this is not so. Oh well

 

[jcsd]

Really it should be "the rule of n-1", in base n number systems.

 

[sol2]

Really it should be "the rule of n-1", in base n number systems.

Could you elaborate some here for me?

 

[jcsd]

For example hexadecimal, where n-1 = 15

90₁₀ = 5A₁₆

5₁₆ + A₁₆ = F₁₆ = 15₁₀

 

[Njorl]

If you were to use base 5, counting would go like this:

1 2 3 4 10 11 12 13 14 20 21 ... 44 100 101 ... 444 1000 1001

the right digit is the number of ones, the next is the number of fives, the next is twentyfives then onehundred twentyfives etc

In this system, n=5, so any multiple of n-1, or four has its digits add up to a multiple of 4.

For example, 96 from decimal is 24x4. In base 5 it is 341 3+4+1=8 which is a multiple of 4.

Njorl

 

[sol2]

Really it should be "the rule of n-1", in base n number systems


Thank you both for responding. I am delving through your explanations.

I had mention fractorization, but I would also like to refer to Edward Tellers article for consideration here.

In "the rule of n-1", how would you apply it to a fissional reaction? I am seeing how the development of this process along with Heisenberg, Leo Szilard, and others, revealled another issue in terms of what a collapsing sphere would entail from a mathematical discription of this event? Can we use thesenumbers in consideration?

What Szilard wanted was to say, "Here is what I have been waiting for. Here is what I have told you in London years ago: fission. Maybe in fission, with a big nucleus -- the biggest, uranium -- split into two pieces. Perhaps this fission caused by one neutron will emit two neutrons and then nuclear explosions will become possible."

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/tel0int-3

Thanks again for responding. I am concerned with the significance and visualization of what these numbers could lead too, and at the same time, wanted a numerical conclusion to such a reaction. It had to have a geometrical realization to this? Heisenberg's collapsing spheres, if you do "search in google," you will find earlier references to this.

Did Heisenberg know? Wheeler was there? What about Wheeler in his Geon of this understanding? A first gravitation explanation for what could have encapsulated such a event?

I will try and pull back a bit here, as I get really excited sometimes, and go over what you offered.

http://128.148.60.98/physics/demopages/Demo/solids/demos/1a2011.jpg

To show the formation of a discrete probability curve

http://128.148.60.98/physics/demopages/Demo/solids/demos/1a2011.html

I hope you can see the ideas in probability that have come to the forefront, and using Pascal's triangle here, how could such a event have been predicted?

At Planck scale if such energy detrminations are capable, then what information is hidden from our view? A Geometrical realization underlyng the basis of reality??

 

[sol2]

Further information to support statements in regards to Stefan Boltzmann and the http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@215.ozkLb3M21fn.10@.1dde7082/6