Discussion:
The Rule Of 72
The Starmaker
2017-06-16 17:27:28 UTC
Raw Message
Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.

all these people are wrong

http://personalfinanceliteracy.com/rule-72-einsteins-rate-return-formula/

are you wrong too?
Dan Christensen
2017-06-16 18:05:26 UTC
Raw Message
Post by The Starmaker
Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
all these people are wrong
Geez, you're dumb.
Post by The Starmaker
http://personalfinanceliteracy.com/rule-72-einsteins-rate-return-formula/
are you wrong too?
It's a useful approximation for typical interest rates over typical lifespans. An investment growing at 5% compound interest pa will double in approx. 72/5 = 14.4 years. Note: 1.05^14.4 = 2.02

Dan
William Elliot
2017-06-18 07:46:53 UTC
Raw Message
What's the rule of 72?
Post by The Starmaker
Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
Sегgi о
2017-06-18 12:03:39 UTC
Raw Message
Post by William Elliot
What's the rule of 72?
Post by The Starmaker
Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
a pay back rule on loans
was declaired illegal in most states in the 1970's
jmfbahciv
2017-06-18 13:21:35 UTC
Raw Message
Post by SÐµÐ³gi Ð¾
Post by William Elliot
What's the rule of 72?
Post by The Starmaker
Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
a pay back rule on loans
was declaired illegal in most states in the 1970's
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
Jack Fearnley
2017-06-18 18:42:34 UTC
Raw Message
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.

Best regards,
Jack Fearnley
Sегgi о
2017-06-18 19:18:35 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fearnley
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.
Best regards,
Jack Fearnley
I got this confused with the Rule of 78 used with Loans,

http://www.tiac.net/~mabaker/rule_of_78.html

it replaced simple interest calculation in the 60's and 70's and
it made you pay more for a loan
jmfbahciv
2017-06-19 12:43:21 UTC
Raw Message
Post by SÐµÐ³gi Ð¾
Post by Jack Fearnley
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.
Best regards,
Jack Fearnley
I got this confused with the Rule of 78 used with Loans,
http://www.tiac.net/~mabaker/rule_of_78.html
it replaced simple interest calculation in the 60's and 70's and
it made you pay more for a loan
I don't remember loans ever being simple interest.

/BAH
Sегgi о
2017-06-19 13:45:36 UTC
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by SÐµÐ³gi Ð¾
Post by Jack Fearnley
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.
Best regards,
Jack Fearnley
I got this confused with the Rule of 78 used with Loans,
http://www.tiac.net/~mabaker/rule_of_78.html
it replaced simple interest calculation in the 60's and 70's and
it made you pay more for a loan
I don't remember loans ever being simple interest.
/BAH
I think it is dependent upon which state you are in, here the "rule of
78" was discontinued from home loans. But I think that in other states
it is still legal.
jmfbahciv
2017-06-20 12:12:30 UTC
Raw Message
Post by SÐµÐ³gi Ð¾
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by SÐµÐ³gi Ð¾
Post by Jack Fearnley
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.
Best regards,
Jack Fearnley
I got this confused with the Rule of 78 used with Loans,
http://www.tiac.net/~mabaker/rule_of_78.html
it replaced simple interest calculation in the 60's and 70's and
it made you pay more for a loan
I don't remember loans ever being simple interest.
/BAH
I think it is dependent upon which state you are in, here the "rule of
78" was discontinued from home loans. But I think that in other states
it is still legal.
OK. My experiences are based on Michigan and Massachusetts.

However, banks make more money if they don't use simple interest model.

/BAH
jmfbahciv
2017-06-19 12:43:22 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fearnley
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

/BAH
The Starmaker
2017-06-19 17:46:35 UTC
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Jack Fearnley
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
/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
2017-06-20 03:01:30 UTC
Raw Message
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Jack Fearnley
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
/BAH
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????
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
2017-06-20 12:12:35 UTC
Raw Message
[some newsgroups elided]
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Jack Fearnley
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
/BAH
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????
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
2017-06-20 14:28:04 UTC
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
[some newsgroups elided]
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Jack Fearnley
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
/BAH
You mean like the value someone came up with the speed of light accounting
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????
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
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...)
jmfbahciv
2017-06-21 12:54:56 UTC
Raw Message
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
[some newsgroups elided]
<snip>
Post by 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...)
The fact that you didn't read anything I wrote is noted.

/BAH
The Starmaker
2017-06-21 19:19:10 UTC
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
[some newsgroups elided]
<snip>
Post by 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...)
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.

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
2017-06-22 12:28:58 UTC
Raw Message
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
[some newsgroups elided]
<snip>
Post by 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...)
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
Post by The Starmaker
world of numerology.
That's not what I wrote. Your flip flopped when it shouldh't have.

<snip nonsense>

/BAH
The Starmaker
2017-06-22 15:58:18 UTC
Raw Message
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
[some newsgroups elided]
<snip>
299,792,459
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
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
Post by The Starmaker
world of numerology.
That's not what I wrote. Your flip flopped when it shouldh't have.
<snip nonsense>
/BAH
Well, here is what you wrote:

and bookkeeping practices."
jmfbahciv
2017-06-23 11:40:25 UTC
Raw Message
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
[some newsgroups elided]
<snip>
299,792,459
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
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
Post by The Starmaker
world of numerology.
That's not what I wrote. Your flip flopped when it shouldh't have.
<snip nonsense>
/BAH
and bookkeeping practices."
Do you know what the word "not" means?

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

/BAH
The Starmaker
2017-06-23 17:11:52 UTC
Raw Message
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
[some newsgroups elided]
<snip>
299,792,459
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
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
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
about the number "9" in the
Post by The Starmaker
world of numerology.
That's not what I wrote. Your flip flopped when it shouldh't have.
<snip nonsense>
/BAH
and bookkeeping practices."
Do you know what the word "not" means?
hmmm...perhaps this is the cause of all the confusion you have in
/BAH
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
2017-06-24 11:40:47 UTC
Raw Message
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
[some newsgroups elided]
<snip>
299,792,459
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
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
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
about the number "9" in the
Post by The Starmaker
world of numerology.
That's not what I wrote. Your flip flopped when it shouldh't have.
<snip nonsense>
/BAH
and bookkeeping practices."
Do you know what the word "not" means?
hmmm...perhaps this is the cause of all the confusion you have in
/BAH
Well, I wasn't talking about "numerology" beforehand, ...but since You seem
to recognize it as "numerology" then you
Post by The Starmaker
are stating it was ...numerology.
But you were doing numerology in the text which has been elided; it was
a half-assed numerology rendition.
Post by The Starmaker
I mean...that's How I read it, I don't know How You read it, I can only go
Post by The Starmaker
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.
Post by The Starmaker
I'm not a Number person...
/BAH
The Starmaker
2017-06-24 16:12:26 UTC
Raw Message
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
[some newsgroups elided]
<snip>
299,792,459
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by The Starmaker
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
Post by The Starmaker
Post by jmfbahciv
all
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
about the number "9" in the
Post by The Starmaker
world of numerology.
That's not what I wrote. Your flip flopped when it shouldh't have.
<snip nonsense>
/BAH
and bookkeeping practices."
Do you know what the word "not" means?
hmmm...perhaps this is the cause of all the confusion you have in
/BAH
Well, I wasn't talking about "numerology" beforehand, ...but since You seem
to recognize it as "numerology" then you
Post by The Starmaker
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!
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
I mean...that's How I read it, I don't know How You read it, I can only go
Post by The Starmaker
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.
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
I'm not a Number person...
/BAH
humbug/
jmfbahciv
2017-06-25 13:50:58 UTC
Raw Message
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Well, I wasn't talking about "numerology" beforehand, ...but since You seem
to recognize it as "numerology" then you
Post by The Starmaker
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
I'm not aware of any advanced science math which is dependent on counting
the occurrence of numerals in all values.
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
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.
Post by The Starmaker
humbug/
A very old worn-out joke.

/BAH

Jack Fearnley
2017-06-20 14:54:53 UTC
Raw Message
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
2017-06-21 12:54:58 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fearnley
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.
Ah, thank you. I could not remember what it was called.

/BAH
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-06-18 14:07:01 UTC
Raw Message
Post by William Elliot
What's the rule of 72?
Post by The Starmaker
Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
The only Rule of 72 I know of appears from time to time in the
Post by William Elliot
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
David Bernier
2017-06-18 16:38:24 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by William Elliot
What's the rule of 72?
Post by The Starmaker
Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
The only Rule of 72 I know of appears from time to time in the
Post by William Elliot
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.
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
2017-06-18 19:27:35 UTC
Raw Message
Post by David Bernier
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by William Elliot
What's the rule of 72?
Post by The Starmaker
Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
The only Rule of 72 I know of appears from time to time in the
Post by William Elliot
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.
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) > .
Well, yucch.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
hanson
2017-06-18 23:07:00 UTC