Joseph Cummins wrote: > Marshall: > It was the Canadian Mint that emailed me their comments about the > NINEs. As they clearly state - their 9999 is 99.99% and is not the > same as .9999 > > It would be really great if one of the other major State/Private mints > would address this issue w/o what I call double talk. > > At 07:48 PM 03/12/2002 -0500, you wrote: > >Joseph Cummins wrote: > > > > > When I re-examined these silver coins to see if there was a DOT before the > > > 4 nines (9999) sure enough there was NO dot. Essentially, I fooled myself > > > by assuming that these 4 nines was synonymous with .9999.
I majored in mathmatics, and have no idea under what conditions 99.99% would not be the same as .9999. The way to make a decimal into a percentage is to multiply the number by 100%, so 100% * .9999 = 99.99%. I learned this in primry school. If you are getting a different answer then I am not sure what you are doing. See http://users.aber.ac.uk/matacc2/ma12610/mich00a/node4.html http://www.mccc.edu/~kelld/CompFDP.htm Marshall -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
