Math??

Eh, I voted no, but I don't really care. All I do is math shit in school, so I'm not particularly fond of the idea of doing and looking at it on my free time as well..

I also voted no. I just don't see any activity in a math forum..

It matters not whether you win or lose; what matters is whether I win or lose.

I voted yes, I'll probably be needing some help in calc this year, and sometimes when I'm sitting in class I discover things mathematical. like
333x333=110889
110+889=999
666x666=443556
443+556=999
999x999=998001
998+001=999

x=6*6*6 X=216 2+1+6=9 X+X=432 4+3+2=9 X+X+X=648 6+4+8=18 X+X+X+X=864 8+6+4=18 X+X+X+X+X=1080 1+0+8+0=9 X+X+X+X+X+X=1296 1+2+9+6=18 X+X+X+X+X+X+X=1512 1+5+1+2=9 X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X=1728 1+7+2+8=18 X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X=1944 1+9+4+4=18

etc. I can't seem to figure out the pattern with the 9s and the 18s but I haven't looked too deep into it.

9 is an amazing number and I am an amazing nerd.

It matters not whether you win or lose; what matters is whether I win or lose.

I might start a thread trying to find the pattern. Math has always been my best subject .

It's a well known fact that for any multiple of 3, if you add the digits together, you will get another number which is a multiple of 3. A lesser known fact is that the same is true for 9.

Exactly, that is how you are supposed to do a quick check to see if a number is divisible by 3.

I found a pattern in the relation of the bases and operands for logarithmic functions during a physics lecture. I lost the piece of paper that I did it on, though.

In phyics my Jr. year of HS, I came up with two theorums that I was really proud of. I used two chalkboards writing out something that showed that the decimals of... the roots of something I think... (it was a long fking time ago) repeated in descending order every other result.

It was something like this:

1.36781239987
2.12553136421
4.72367812364
6.42125531312
9.14723678123

But a lot longer, and I don't really remember what the point was.

The other had something to do with the number of verticies of a figure based on its dimensions (not length... think 2-d, 3-d, etc).

Unfortunately, both were shown to me as being already-discovered theorums shortly thereafter. The first one was in an abstract algebra book, though. Look at me. I "formulated" an abstract algebra theorum in 11th grade. *flexes brain*