Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #423012

Re: The Rule Of 72

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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????

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-16 10:27 -0700
  Re: The Rule Of 72 William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-06-18 00:46 -0700
    Re: The Rule Of 72 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-06-18 14:07 +0000
      Re: The Rule Of 72 David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> - 2017-06-18 12:38 -0400
        Re: The Rule Of 72 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-06-18 19:27 +0000
    Re: The Rule Of 72 "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-18 16:07 -0700
    Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-19 10:46 -0700
      Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-19 20:01 -0700
      Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-20 12:12 +0000
        Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-20 07:28 -0700
          Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-21 12:54 +0000
            Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-21 12:19 -0700
              Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-22 12:28 +0000
                Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-22 08:58 -0700
                Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-23 11:40 +0000
                Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-23 10:11 -0700
                Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-24 11:40 +0000
                Re: The Rule Of 72 Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 11:46 +0000
                Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-25 13:50 +0000
                Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-24 09:12 -0700
                Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-25 13:50 +0000
        Re: The Rule Of 72 Jack Fearnley <jack@alcor.concordia.ca> - 2017-06-20 14:54 +0000
          Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-21 12:54 +0000

csiph-web