Magical Number Nine

Hi,

Last night I almost failed to get a sleep when pondering with number nine (9).

What I noticed is that when ever I add nine with nine (9+9) the simple digits of it's outcome is nine (9).

For example:
9+9=18 then 1+8=9
9+9+9=27 then 2+7=9
9+9+9+9=36 then 3+6=9
9+9+9+9+9=45 then 4+5=9

and so on, how far it goes, I do not know.

I can take even dozens of number nine and add them together and still get nine in preceding method. I am sure there is an mathematical explanation for it, but I myself - as a layman in mathematics (well I always been poor in that) - I cannot explain it.

Any mathematicians here to help me out?

-v

It's part of a Marko's Rodin math:

rodin.freelancepartnership.com....

I can see you have been study it ... your avatar is representation of Rodin's coil in 2D

reply to post by valhala

Originally posted by valhala
It's part of a Marko's Rodin math:
I can see you have been study it ... your avatar is representation of Rodin's coil in 2D

Honestly, I never heard of Rodin. And this number nine has haunted me personally from last night. But thanks for pointing out Rodin's work, I will definitely take a look of it once I have had a lunch.

Thanks! Your reply was definitely worthwhile

Sincerely,

-v

[edit] PS. I adopted the avatar - which is enneagram - from G.I. Gurdjieff's works. But now I see when skimming Rodin's works that it is there also.

[edit on 31-10-2009 by v01i0]

He did quite interesting research there. And the best part of it is he had put all that numbers in some practical form with that coil. I'm playing with that thing for the last month or so and must say the theory holds the water ... for now

reply to post by v01i0
That is really something. I marvel at the simplest things like this,
that I'm sure I would have never noticed my own. Thank you for sharing that.



[edit on 31-10-2009 by randyvs]

You are all kidding aren't you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the UK we are taught this aged around 8 it's basic arithmetic or at least I was and so have my 2 boys 8 and 11.

I don't mean to flame anyone but if this is an indication of current education levels I'm appalled.

But numbers are amazing and you can have loads of 'fun' with them.

Try sequences, Fibonnaci etc

[edit on 31-10-2009 by johnb]

reply to post by johnb

Originally posted by johnb
You are all kidding aren't you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the UK we are taught this aged around 8 it's basic arithmetic or at least I was and so have my 2 boys 8 and 11.

I don't mean to flame anyone but if this is an indication of current education levels I'm appalled.

But numbers are amazing and you can have loads of 'fun' with them.

Try sequences, Fibonnaci etc

[edit on 31-10-2009 by johnb]

Unfortunately no, I am not kidding. Of course, it might be case that this have been taught on school, but I never really paid attention there. This was really a new thing for me. The fact I didn't paid attention to mathematics lessons in school must be the reason that I am so poor with maths

Nevertheless, it's good to hear that these things are taught in schools on your area. I hope that they are doing it elsewhere also.

Might be also the case, that I have heard this unconsciously in school, but that must've been like 20 years ago so I wonder where it pumped into my mind right now

-v

[edit on 31-10-2009 by v01i0]

reply to post by johnb


I do agree this basic idea with number nine is prime scholl math. But what Marko Rodin has done is not. Far from it. Have a look at his ideas and tell me where is the scholl that teaches that ... I'll send my kids there

9 is infinit back to self... the end technically. new numerology. lack love for 1 when your 9.

reply to post by valhala

Originally posted by valhala
He did quite interesting research there.

Indeed. I am currently examining his thoughts and I am getting the impression that he has an Pythagorean approach on numbers. Very interesting - more interesting even is the coil of his. Thank you for sharing his work with the rest of us.

I've always thought that this theosophical add as I have learned it - meaning that we break greater numbers (for example 39) in it's digital root, which are 3 and 9), is quite irrelevant in the end. And the Kabbalistic numerology uses the same method by the way. Now I might want to reconsider all this.

-v

[edit on 31-10-2009 by v01i0]

reply to post by Amanuel

Originally posted by Amanuel
9 is infinit back to self... the end technically. new numerology. lack love for 1 when your 9.

Aye, it is also interesting that number nine is the last number of our numeric system (from 0 to 9).

-v

Originally posted by johnb
You are all kidding aren't you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the UK we are taught this aged around 8 it's basic arithmetic or at least I was and so have my 2 boys 8 and 11.

I don't mean to flame anyone but if this is an indication of current education levels I'm appalled.

[edit on 31-10-2009 by johnb]

I was gonna say the same thing - in the UK, this is how we're taught our 9 times table

haha my name is F**** H*** = 9 i see now!

reply to post by XHellcatX

Originally posted by XHellcatX
I was gonna say the same thing - in the UK, this is how we're taught our 9 times table

Now when I try to go back in time in remembrance of how I was taught these things, I think I recall that they used merely the learning through memorization.

By 9 times table, do you mean multiplication tables? Like 1 X 9, 2 X 9, 3 X 9 and so on?

-v

yes but why multiply when you can add and reduce, and get smaller, fractalize yourself, then truly can you open, when your sheared, and feared. growin a 3 week old beard!!!

Amanuel, I cannot comprehend the idea of your few last posts - I can understand the words but not the idea behind them. Could you clarify?

Please, I am not saying this to insult. Maybe you are being poetic?

-v

[edit on 31-10-2009 by v01i0]

Even 9 X 983 = 8847, which again is 8 + 8 + 4 + 7 = 27 and 2 + 7 = 9.

And 9 X 14216 = 127944, which is 1 + 2 + 7 + 9 + 4 + 4 = 27 and 2 + 7 again 9.

Is there any multiplication of nine that doesn't give 9 as result in preceding method?

IMO, interesting.

-v

[edit on 31-10-2009 by v01i0]

Is there any multiplication of nine that doesn't give 9 as result in preceding method?

I did small computer program to test this ... as far as I can tell there is no multiple of 9 that does not give the result 9 ... I have tested multiplies up to 2 ^ 32 (conviniet for computers )

reply to post by valhala


Why isn't this Marko Rodin's math featured in a thread of its own?
It would deserve one, in my opinion.