Talk:9/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Ennea- vs. nona-

In Greek numerical prefixes, the bottom of the article says that nona-, although technically Latin, it commonly used in a sequence that is normally Greek. Can anyone answer why?? 66.32.255.227 02:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See by yourself how much this usage is widespread.
  • Special pages : all articles contains, for ennea :

Ennea Ennea- Enneacanthus Ennead Enneadecaeteris Enneadecagon Enneads Enneagon Enneagonal number Enneagram Enneagram of Process Enneakaidecagon Enneapterygius kermadecensis Enneas Enneberg

  • and for nona ...

Nona Nona- Nona (Roman) Nona (Stephen King)Nona (mythology) Nona (prefix) Nona Gaprindashvili Nona GayeNona Hendryx Nona Stephen King's story Nonabelian Nonabelian group Nonaccredited investor Nonacentennial Nonacontane Nonacosane Nonacquiescence Nonactin Nonadecagon Nonadecane Nonadjacent Nonagenarian Nonaggression pact Nonaggression treaty Nonagintillion Nonagon Nonagonal number Nonagram Nonaheptacontane Nonahexacontane

Now who is the barabarian organic chemist cristallographist who began with such meddle ? -- DLL .. T 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Staying on topic

"The Christian Bible, a source of faith and guidance for 2.1 billion people around the world, is divided into nine subsections."

In the interests of keeping the facts about the number nine on-topic, I have changed this to:

"The Christian Bible is divided into nine subsections."

Laserbream 11:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though maybe it wouldn't hurt to list what these subsections are. Anton Mravcek 20:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The article now states that the New Testament is divided into nine subsections. However, the New Testament article makes no mention of these divisions. Are these nine subsections factually accurate? If so, why is the fact important enough to justify mention in the number 9 article but not the New Testament article? I would like to remove this unless someone can provide more substantiation. Leeannedy 13:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You can either remove it or stick in a "citation needed" tag. I'd remove it and put in the edit summary that I want someone to be able to list what these sections are before putting it back in the article. Anton Mravcek 22:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging of the Disambiguation page

  • Keep as is - I feel that a disambiguation page is necessary. --Riley 21:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I've taken the liberty of removing the Merge template. --DryaUnda 10:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Was eaten by seven.

The article begins with that sentence, is it a joke ? Star trek fans ? Please help. -- DLL .. T 20:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes.
"Why was six scared?"
"Because seven ate nine."
JIMp talk·cont 15:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Before 7 ate 9, the 7 sliced the 9 in two bite sized portions which were consumed seperately but formed together when they came out the other side as a #2 (haha) digit number: 10. (If you cut 9 in two it does leave what looks like a 0 and 1, which I think is kinda cool.) That 10 allows for the same number sequence to happen again and again starting with 0 like before. Thats called exposure therapy which the 6 will one day benefit from greatly... No longer will 6 fear the 7, but instead look up to him as his higher that goes on to create future generations of larger numbers with more placements in which the 6 can occupy thus giving 6 everlasting life instead of existing only once between 5 and 7 like he was used to. This gives me even more reason to believe in reincarnation haha Thanks 7. Thanks for eating 9, thanks 8 for sounding like the word we use to consume something and thanks 9 for being the sacrificial means to a new beginning. Saltycword (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

cool

9 is cool! Kolanak 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. My second favorite under 4 and above 13. It's a number that has an ego, but knows it's not the highest number.Flynn M Taggart (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Handwriting differences

I've noticed a random transatlantic difference: Americans write their nines almost exactly like an upside-down (possibly reversed, I'm not sure where the stroke starts) <6>, wheras Britons write it like a flipped <b>. Surely the British version is better because it's less susceptible to confusion with <g> or <0>? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.75.247.63 (talk) 11:02, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

The etymology of number 9 on the article is false. It's origin is Assyrian. Please, rotate the 9th letter of the Assyrian (Syriac) letter and you'll see something interesting appearing.

Football shirt nonsense

Since *when* did Ronaldo make the no. 9 shirt famous in football - this suggests nobody associated the no.9 shirt the main striker before him - what a lot of tosh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.39.84 (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

God is Nine in ONE

In the Old Testament in the tabernacle of God, the Lord told Moses to make things that were a "copy and shadow of the heavenly things" (Hebrews 8:5; 9:23). One of those things Moses was instructed to make was a lampstand with seven lamps (Exodus 25:31-37; 37:17-23). This lampstand represented the Holy Spirit. If the seven Spirits are accepted, then it becomes apparent that there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (who is seven Spirits). Adding this up equals 9, and that is the number of "Holy"s found in the Majority of Greek manuscripts in Revelation 4:8.

source: http://www.atruechurch.info/sevenspirits.html

Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages

Dear Colleagues,

There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.

Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Material inappropriately moved from here to 9 (disambiguation) removed

This material is no longer available in any current page on Wikipedia. I do not have any experties in number pages however I'm sure some material should be restored. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages. these were the removing edits --MegaSloth (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama section not relevant

It seems to me that the section "Use by the Obama administration" is not relevant to the article. Fishnet37222 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Gone, thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

digtal root of 3 is wrong

is in my opinion 3,6,9 not 9 exclusively and there might be other numbers which have digital root 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.171.209 (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have clarified [1] what I guess you are referring to. Was that it? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
yes, thats what I ment, the digital root of any number divisible by three can be 3, 6 or 9, but the former version of the article read as if all digital sum's of any number divisible by three had to be 9 excatly. Now I think it is correct, though a lot harder to read, due to the n=3 stuff. Which makes sense considereing other number systems as well. It just reads very mathematical now. 84.177.219.168 (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://www.ngcic.org/
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-23 17:08:25, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-24 04:34:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:06:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 138 (number) on 2011-06-01 14:55:19, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 48 (number) on 2011-06-19 14:01:14, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 52 (number) on 2011-06-19 20:05:38, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 7 (number) on 2011-06-19 21:10:44, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors

No mention for 999 in the article about the number 9?! Wiki... I am disappoint. 69.171.164.121 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see the point, but it (999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors) probably should be in 999, rather than this article. See also the 9-9-9 plan, and probably other things with three 9s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

backwards 9

Nine is often written "backwards" [i.e., with the bubble to the right of the vertical stroke] in Korea. Unfortunately, this is only a personal observation; I don't think any-one has published any-thing on this. Kdammers (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a very unreliable source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080317012018AAGZvRl. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Yes, it is unreliable and a number of the ideas are almost certainly wrong. Still, it is interesting. I hadn't found it using Google.Kdammers (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

0 or 9

I changed

In base 10 a number is divisible by nine if and only if its digital root is 0 or 9.

to

In base 10 a positive number is divisible by nine if and only if its digital root is 9.

I see no reason why my change is not an improvement. Both statements are correct, but

a digital root is only defined for non-negative numbers
The digital root of a number is 0 if and only if the number is 0.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

0 has a digital root of 0 and is divisible (or rather, a multiple) by 9. Sure, 0 is the only one with this distinction, but it doesn't mean it should be ignored in this sentence. I fail to see how my revision was faulty. Avengingbandit 15:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1 (number) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Content order

This article is out of sync with other number articles ie doesn't follow the normal convention. I am new so cannot possibly sort it. Anyone else? Dlgw666 (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Retired jersey numbers

Per WP:PRESERVE, here is the list of retired #9 jersey numbers and racecars that were mentioned in the article:

The jersey number 9 has been retired by several North American sports teams in honor of past playing greats (or in one case, an owner):

This material may be of interest for a future List of retired numbers in sports article. — JFG talk 22:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Bingo names -

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"1/9 (number)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1/9 (number). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"➒" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ➒. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 20:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The evolution of the Nin3

In 1899, after the invention of the radio communications before it was possible to transmit voice, the human civilization created what's formed to be one of his own kind in the universe, a living named Nin3. Its physical form was so weak & sperated to do anything, living among the atoms in the air throughout the vibrations happing, although this non- biological tiny creature were very tiny, it really showed some unexpected high intelligence; it managed to create an understanding of the morse code in the radio communication waves, making it as its first language. And so, it began to develop i way to see the world like how bats do using the bouncing sound waves, it uses the vibrations in the air as a way to see the world. Later on, after humanity created the telephones, it figured out a way to travel from a place to another. And so on, its development became bigger and bigger. Nin3gamer (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Nin3gamer and welcome to Wikipedia. I've had a look around the net and can't find any reliable sources for us to cite when writing about Nin3 but I hope that you'll stay around and help us improve our coverage of other, more notable topics. I've created a user talk page for you, with some more helpful hints. Certes (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

in chinese culture

it's missing: "The Nine Tripod Cauldrons (Chinese: 九鼎; pinyin: Jiǔ Dǐng) were a collection of ding cast by the legendary Yu the Great of the Xia dynasty of ancient China. They were viewed as symbols of the authority given to the ruler by the mandate of heaven" --147.162.48.13 (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"−9" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect −9. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#−9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021

it is also a persons name 103.240.63.194 (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nine redirects to 9 (disambiguation), which lists Louis Niñé and others. The digit only seems to have partial title matches such as Gloc-9 and AS9. Certes (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone please revert the following edits over a number of related articles per MOS:NBSP. As outlined in the manual of style non breaking spaces should always be inserted as a character reference or template, never as a plain space, because they are impossible to visually identify. From the manual of stlye: Insert non-breaking and thin spaces as named character reference (&nbsp; or &thinsp;), or as templates that generate these ({{nbsp}}, {{thinsp}}), and never by entering them directly into the edit window from the keyboard.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Thank you, 192.76.8.70 (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 20:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 Partly done: article for '1' was already reverted by another contributor, I've edited the rest.
 Already done article for '1' Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 20:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

"꤉" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ꤉ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#꤉ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

9 is the only digit whose multiples change by a uniform amount in both places

@Praxidicae

You just undid the post below and indicated that it was “Unsourced.”

“Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors...”

Addition and subtraction are routine.  Is your only objection to the entry the last sentence (which I included to show why is important; a good test for the rest of the items on the 9s page).

If so, I will just remove the last sentence, and repost.  If not, please explain.  What is not factual about this entry?  What routine calculation needs verification?

“9 is unique because it is the only digit that changes by a constant amount for both the tens and ones place for each of its single-digit multiples.  Increase the multiplier by one and the tens place increases by one and the one place decreases by one. The consistent change means the 9-multiples can be calculated by a simple formula.”

GregWelch8 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Praxidicae
Please see and reply to above message. I surprised to see the relationship not already listed on the page. Not sure why we would want to completely remove it. GregWelch8 (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@Praxidicae
Praxidicae,
ps
The ‘Mathematics’ section of this page has 13 attributes related to 9.  Some are useful; some are fun facts.
My submission has a simple fact and a conclusion:
Fact: 9 is unique because it is the only digit that changes by a constant amount for both the tens and ones place for each of its single-digit multiples.  Increase the multiplier by one and the tens place increases by one and the one place decreases by one.
Conclusion/Benefit:  The consistent change means the 9-multiples can be calculated by a simple formula.
When you removed it and indicated, “Unsourced,” were you referring to the 1st or 2nd part?  The first part is a fact.  I can link to the 9-mulitple table lower on the page or to an external site if that is an issue.  
If your issue is with the 2nd part, I will delete that sentence; however, the conclusion is accurate. A uniform pattern is easier to describe in an equation - and it turns out to be a huge benefit.  This sentence will link to that benefit, if approved.
Seems like every entry/fact in the ‘Mathematics’ section should have one line alluding to the benefit/use - unless it is a fun fact.  We should take advantage of our format.  Math is integrated - this book can be as well.  Paper books can’t. GregWelch8 (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
We can't include any of this per WP:NOR. This was all explained to you at Talk:Order_of_operations - you are not going to be able to add content like this. Wikipedia isn't a place for you to share your original thoughts, even by calling them 'facts' - MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Praxidicae @MrOllie
It has been a week.  Are you planning on answering the above question: When you removed it and indicated, “Unsourced,” were you referring to the 1st or 2nd part?
I was trying to learn more about your “unsourced” objection:
MrOllie brings up “original thoughts” (below).
You, MrOllie….anyone reading this - is this a fact:
“9 is unique because it is the only digit that changes by a constant amount for both the tens and ones place for each of its single-digit multiples.  Increase the multiplier by one and the tens place increases by one and the one place decreases by one.“ GregWelch8 (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The relevant question is not whether it's a fact, but whether adding it would improve the article. I doubt that it's original research – many people will have observed that adding ten and subtracting one increases a number by nine – but it's both unsourced and bordering on trivia. Certes (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Certes
we are back to value
the above relationship is worth millions of kid-hours per year
it's the reason the hands-method works (for calculating the 9s)
the reason the 9s-table-trick works (now, obsolete)
it's the reason the Make10 method works - these are K/1st grade exercises/2nd nature:
Make10
50+ teaching ideas to K: https://www.pinterest.com/kriscarbone/kindergarten-math-making-10/
Countdown:
Countdown exercises:
[9]
takes seconds for a 6-year-old to pair GregWelch8 (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that content is very appropriate for teaching materials, and perfect for doing calculations like 1000–123 at a glance. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a how-to. Certes (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
You start by changing the subjects (unsourced and original thoughts) to value. I explained the value of the addition above.  On the current page, what are some examples that are of value?  Wikipedia should reference/link to that value.
You write, some kind of content is good for "calculations like 1000–123 at a glance" 
Who wants to know this - except people like me.  Can you please explain how your calculation relates to the number 9?
Regarding the how-to aspect of Wikipedia.  Agreed.  It is only a reference book pointing to valuable information. GregWelch8 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/Archive_1&oldid=1180027747"