The Rule Of 72

[The Starmaker]

Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.



all these people are wrong


http://personalfinanceliteracy.com/rule-72-einsteins-rate-return-formula/
https://books.google.com/books?id=ywcaDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=EZU9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://financialadvisoriq.com/c/1645543/189593



are you wrong too?

[William Elliot]

What's the rule of 72?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.17...@panix5.panix.com>,

The only Rule of 72 I know of appears from time to time in the
"fortune" login message on my UNIX machine. As follows:

> I'm going through my "I want to go back to New York" phase today.
> Happens every six months or so. So, I thought, perhaps unwisely,
> that I'd share it with you.

> In New York in the winter it is million degrees below zero and
> the wind travels at a million miles an hour down 5th avenue.
> And in LA it's 72.

> In New York in the summer it is a million degrees and the
> humidity is a million percent.
> And in LA it's 72.

> In New York there are a million interesting people.
> And in LA there are 72.

And no, I don't think Einstein wrote it.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[hanson]

"William Elliot" <ma...@panix.com> wrote:
> What's the rule of 72?
>

> <star...@ix.netcom.com> the SternKacker wrote:
>> Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
>

hanson wrote:
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
who was arrested for wife-beating in 1906, twice,
and AE did not create anything and much less
Rule 72 which is position 69 with 3 people watching.

[David Bernier]

LA: "Less Than Zero" (the novel) is set in Los Angeles ...

ref.: Less Than Zero (Wikipedia),

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Less_Than_Zero_(novel) > .

David Bernier

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <oi6a35$ee5$1...@dont-email.me>,

Well, yucch.

[The Starmaker]

jmfbahciv wrote:
>
> Jack Fearnley wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:21:35 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >> But it's a fast way to estimate the time to double the original amount
> >> when the interest or dividends are reinvested.
> >>
> >> IIRC, divide 72 by the percentage. That will give the number of year to
> >> double the original amount.
> >>
> >> /BAH
> >
> > The exact doubling time is log(2)/log(1+r/100).
> > If we expand log in a Taylor series and take only the first term
> > we get the approximate doubling time as 100*log(2)/r.
> > That is 69.315/r.
> >
> > So why don't we use a rule of 69 or a rule of 70?
> >
> > It turns out that, in the range 1% to 10% and rounded to whole years, 72
> > is more accurate than 69.315.
> >
> > I found this quite surprising.
>
> There are a lot of accounting tricks having to with 9s. I suppose people
> aren't being taught these rules since most accounting is done by computer
> rather than "by hand". ISTM there was a book published which described
> these "9" tricks. I always meant to figure out proofs for them but
> life got in the way :-). When you first encounter these tricks of the
> trade, you think it's magic.
>
> /BAH


You mean like the value someone came up with the speed of light accounting trick:

299,792,458 meters per second


299



it ends like a 99.9 percent ( how these guys think when they are unsure)


299...just short of 300


keeping it under the true value of over 300,000,000.



Then I notice other "9" patterns...


299,792,458


792

7+2=9

458

4+5=9


299,792,458 meters per second is an accounting trick, isn't it????

[The Starmaker]

Okay...going a step further on the "9" accounting trick..

How many nines are there in 299,792,458?

There are three numbered "9"'s
There are 4+5=9 and 7+2=9 2+7=9
So that totals 3 more "9"s
Then you have nine digits - 299,792,458

299,792,458 meters per second is an accounting trick, isn't it????

What is the speed of light? 99999999999999999999999998


good thing i'm not good at arithmetic...

[jmfbahciv]

[some newsgroups elided]

I'm not talking about numerology. I'm talking about real accounting
and bookkeeping practices. IIRC, one of the "9" tricks helped
a bookkeeper figure out if an imbalance was caused by transposing
two numbers. there were many more little tricks to figure out
mistakes.

/BAH

[The Starmaker]

Well, if that is the case then the speed of light should read: 299,792,459


somebody must have made a mistake somewhere...

(i was wondering how that "8" got in there...)

[Jack Fearnley]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:12:35 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:


>
> I'm not talking about numerology. I'm talking about real accounting and
> bookkeeping practices. IIRC, one of the "9" tricks helped a bookkeeper
> figure out if an imbalance was caused by transposing two numbers. there
> were many more little tricks to figure out mistakes.
>
> /BAH

This trick is usually called 'casting out nines'.

You can get lots of info if you Google it.

Jack Fearnley

[jmfbahciv]

Ah, thank you. I could not remember what it was called.

/BAH

[jmfbahciv]

The Starmaker wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>

>> [some newsgroups elided]

<snip>

> Well, if that is the case then the speed of light should read: 299,792,459
>
>
> somebody must have made a mistake somewhere...
>
> (i was wondering how that "8" got in there...)

The fact that you didn't read anything I wrote is noted.

/BAH

[The Starmaker]

i think you said it was numerlogy and not an accounting trick, so...it's all about the number "9" in the
world of numerology.


In numerolgy the number "9" it always becomes a 9 using some sort of trick.

if that is the case then the speed of light should read: 299,792,459

maybe you just don't know ...numerology.


The fact that you didn't understand anything I wrote is noted.


You might know math but you don't know your numbers.

[jmfbahciv]

The Starmaker wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> > jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [some newsgroups elided]
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Well, if that is the case then the speed of light should read:
299,792,459
>> >
>> >
>> > somebody must have made a mistake somewhere...
>> >
>> > (i was wondering how that "8" got in there...)
>>
>> The fact that you didn't read anything I wrote is noted.
>>
>> /BAH
>
>
> i think you said it was numerlogy and not an accounting trick, so...it's all
about the number "9" in the
> world of numerology.

That's not what I wrote. Your flip flopped when it shouldh't have.

<snip nonsense>

/BAH

[The Starmaker]

[jmfbahciv]

Do you know what the word "not" means?

hmmm...perhaps this is the cause of all the confusion you have in
your posts.

/BAH

[The Starmaker]

Well, I wasn't talking about "numerology" beforehand, ...but since You seem to recognize it as "numerology" then you
are stating it was ...numerology.


I mean...that's How I read it, I don't know How You read it, I can only go by your words, not your intentions.

But...you're problably a Number person and not a Word person.


I'm not a Number person...

[jmfbahciv]

But you were doing numerology in the text which has been elided; it was
a half-assed numerology rendition.

>
>
> I mean...that's How I read it, I don't know How You read it, I can only go
by your words, not your intentions.
>
> But...you're problably a Number person and not a Word person.

No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics. I'm beginning
to understand how you think.

>
>
> I'm not a Number person...

/BAH

[Valok Planek]

jmfbahciv wrote:

>> But...you're problably a Number person and not a Word person.
>
> No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics. I'm beginning
> to understand how you think.
>
>> I'm not a Number person...
>
> /BAH

You are insulting me by saying /BAH.

[The Starmaker]

I wasn't really aware I was doing numerology...I thought I was doing science math highly advanced mathematics!

>
> >
> >
> > I mean...that's How I read it, I don't know How You read it, I can only go
> by your words, not your intentions.
> >
> > But...you're problably a Number person and not a Word person.
>
> No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics. I'm beginning
> to understand how you think.

I wasn't really aware I was...thinking.

> >
> >
> > I'm not a Number person...
>
> /BAH

humbug/

[jmfbahciv]

The Starmaker wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:


>> > Well, I wasn't talking about "numerology" beforehand, ...but since You
seem
>> to recognize it as "numerology" then you
>> > are stating it was ...numerology.
>>
>> But you were doing numerology in the text which has been elided; it was
>> a half-assed numerology rendition.
>
> I wasn't really aware I was doing numerology...I thought I was doing science
> math highly advanced mathematics!

I'm not aware of any advanced science math which is dependent on counting
the occurrence of numerals in all values.

>> No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics. I'm beginning
>> to understand how you think.
>
>
> I wasn't really aware I was...thinking.

ROTFLMAO.

>>
>> /BAH
>
> humbug/

A very old worn-out joke.

/BAH

[jmfbahciv]

If you're insulted with this, you need to reexamine your assumptions.

/BAH