Strange sum that always end up with 9












1












$begingroup$


If we have any number, example 4896, and sum all digits



sum = 4+8+9+6 = 27



and than substract this number from the original number, we always get a number that is divisible by 9:



4896-27=4869 -> 4869/9 = 541.



Moreover now everytime i sum the digits from new number (4869), i will get number divisible by 9:



(4+8+6+9=27[divisible])



71 - (7+1) = 63



485 - (4+8+5) = 468/9=52 , 4+6+8 = 18(divisible)





Similarly interesting is with 2 digit numbers where with the same process resulting number is always 9



45 -> 45-9 = 36 (3+6=9)



87 -> 87-15 = 72 (7+2=9)



Its quite beyond my comprehension. Can anyone explain this phenomena?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    334-10=324[divisible], 324 -> 3+2+4=9[divisible]
    $endgroup$
    – Martin
    Dec 10 '18 at 22:13










  • $begingroup$
    You might also like to try this. Take a 3 digit nunber and reverse it. Subtract the smaller number from the bigger one. Reverse the result and add. (Example: $532-235 = 297$; $297+792=1089$) Try with a few different numbers that don't read the same backwards as forwards.
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Dec 11 '18 at 0:57


















1












$begingroup$


If we have any number, example 4896, and sum all digits



sum = 4+8+9+6 = 27



and than substract this number from the original number, we always get a number that is divisible by 9:



4896-27=4869 -> 4869/9 = 541.



Moreover now everytime i sum the digits from new number (4869), i will get number divisible by 9:



(4+8+6+9=27[divisible])



71 - (7+1) = 63



485 - (4+8+5) = 468/9=52 , 4+6+8 = 18(divisible)





Similarly interesting is with 2 digit numbers where with the same process resulting number is always 9



45 -> 45-9 = 36 (3+6=9)



87 -> 87-15 = 72 (7+2=9)



Its quite beyond my comprehension. Can anyone explain this phenomena?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    334-10=324[divisible], 324 -> 3+2+4=9[divisible]
    $endgroup$
    – Martin
    Dec 10 '18 at 22:13










  • $begingroup$
    You might also like to try this. Take a 3 digit nunber and reverse it. Subtract the smaller number from the bigger one. Reverse the result and add. (Example: $532-235 = 297$; $297+792=1089$) Try with a few different numbers that don't read the same backwards as forwards.
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Dec 11 '18 at 0:57
















1












1








1





$begingroup$


If we have any number, example 4896, and sum all digits



sum = 4+8+9+6 = 27



and than substract this number from the original number, we always get a number that is divisible by 9:



4896-27=4869 -> 4869/9 = 541.



Moreover now everytime i sum the digits from new number (4869), i will get number divisible by 9:



(4+8+6+9=27[divisible])



71 - (7+1) = 63



485 - (4+8+5) = 468/9=52 , 4+6+8 = 18(divisible)





Similarly interesting is with 2 digit numbers where with the same process resulting number is always 9



45 -> 45-9 = 36 (3+6=9)



87 -> 87-15 = 72 (7+2=9)



Its quite beyond my comprehension. Can anyone explain this phenomena?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




If we have any number, example 4896, and sum all digits



sum = 4+8+9+6 = 27



and than substract this number from the original number, we always get a number that is divisible by 9:



4896-27=4869 -> 4869/9 = 541.



Moreover now everytime i sum the digits from new number (4869), i will get number divisible by 9:



(4+8+6+9=27[divisible])



71 - (7+1) = 63



485 - (4+8+5) = 468/9=52 , 4+6+8 = 18(divisible)





Similarly interesting is with 2 digit numbers where with the same process resulting number is always 9



45 -> 45-9 = 36 (3+6=9)



87 -> 87-15 = 72 (7+2=9)



Its quite beyond my comprehension. Can anyone explain this phenomena?







number-theory rational-numbers






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 10 '18 at 22:05









Martin Martin

1082




1082












  • $begingroup$
    334-10=324[divisible], 324 -> 3+2+4=9[divisible]
    $endgroup$
    – Martin
    Dec 10 '18 at 22:13










  • $begingroup$
    You might also like to try this. Take a 3 digit nunber and reverse it. Subtract the smaller number from the bigger one. Reverse the result and add. (Example: $532-235 = 297$; $297+792=1089$) Try with a few different numbers that don't read the same backwards as forwards.
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Dec 11 '18 at 0:57




















  • $begingroup$
    334-10=324[divisible], 324 -> 3+2+4=9[divisible]
    $endgroup$
    – Martin
    Dec 10 '18 at 22:13










  • $begingroup$
    You might also like to try this. Take a 3 digit nunber and reverse it. Subtract the smaller number from the bigger one. Reverse the result and add. (Example: $532-235 = 297$; $297+792=1089$) Try with a few different numbers that don't read the same backwards as forwards.
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Dec 11 '18 at 0:57


















$begingroup$
334-10=324[divisible], 324 -> 3+2+4=9[divisible]
$endgroup$
– Martin
Dec 10 '18 at 22:13




$begingroup$
334-10=324[divisible], 324 -> 3+2+4=9[divisible]
$endgroup$
– Martin
Dec 10 '18 at 22:13












$begingroup$
You might also like to try this. Take a 3 digit nunber and reverse it. Subtract the smaller number from the bigger one. Reverse the result and add. (Example: $532-235 = 297$; $297+792=1089$) Try with a few different numbers that don't read the same backwards as forwards.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Dec 11 '18 at 0:57






$begingroup$
You might also like to try this. Take a 3 digit nunber and reverse it. Subtract the smaller number from the bigger one. Reverse the result and add. (Example: $532-235 = 297$; $297+792=1089$) Try with a few different numbers that don't read the same backwards as forwards.
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Dec 11 '18 at 0:57












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

I will give a formal proof for numbers with $4$ digits. You can think about how to generalize it (Edit: or refer to @fleablood's answer who gave a formal proof for arbitrarily many digits).



Let $n=abcd$ be a number where $0leq a,b,c,dleq 9$ are it's digits. For example if $n=4821$ then $a=4,b=8,c=2,d=1$.



Another way to write $n$ is as $n=acdot 1000 + bcdot 100 +c cdot 10 +d$.



On the other hand the sum of digits is $a+b+c+d$.



so $$n - text{The sum of digits} = acdot 1000 + bcdot 100 + ccdot 10 + d -a-b-c-d$$
The right hand side turns out to be $acdot 999 + bcdot 99 + ccdot 9$ which is divisible by $9$.



The second thing that interested you is that the sum of digits of the new number is always divisible by $9$. For this you should refer to @Ross Milikan answer.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Voted up because it manages both to be a formal proof and avoid advanced notation. (I think $Sigma$ may be advanced for the questioner.)
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Dec 10 '18 at 22:47












  • $begingroup$
    @timtfj Thanks. This is basically why I posted this answer despite the existing answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    Dec 10 '18 at 22:54










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks to all of you for your answers. As I am not very advanced in formal math notation, this answer is easiest for me to understand.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin
    Dec 12 '18 at 8:35



















2












$begingroup$

This is the standard divisibility test for $9$. It is also called "casting out 9s". The remainder on dividing by $9$ is the same as the remainder on dividing the sum of the digits by $9$. It works because $10^n$ always has a remainder of $1$ when dividing by $9$ because, for example, $ 100000=99999+1$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    This is very well known:



    Consider that the number is $N= sum_{k=0}^n a_i 10^k$ where $a_i$ are the digits. Digits. Then the sum of the digits is $S = sum_{k=0}^n a_i$.



    Then $N - S = sum_{k=0}^n a_i(10^k -1)$.



    Now each of the $10^k-1$ is $99999.......9$ which is divisible by $9$. So the whole number $N-S$ is divisible by $9$.



    (Note the last digit, $a_0$ is simply subtracted. You can think of it as $a_0 - a_0 = a_0*10^0 - a_0 = a_0(10^0 - 1) = a_0(1 - 1) = a_0*0 = 0$.)



    ....



    As a result, a number is divisible by $9$ if and only if the sum of its digits are divisible by $9$ so that gives you your second result.



    It also helps us realize if we take a number and divide by $9$ and take the remainder, then the remainder will be the same as the remainder taking the sum of the digits and dividing by $9$ and taking the remainder.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$





















      1












      $begingroup$

      To answer just the part about 2-digit numbers:



      Other answers have explained why the result of subtracting the digits of a number $n$ from $n$ is always divisible by $9$ and that if a number is divisible by $9$, so is the sum of its digits.



      If $n$ only has two digits, it can't be bigger than $99$. So when you subtract its digits, you get something that's (i) less than $99$, and (ii) divisible by $9$. The only possibilities are $9$, $18$, $27$, $36$, $45$, $54$, $63$, $72$ and $81$.



      Now, why do their digits always sum to 9? Two ways of looking at it:



      First way: The biggest sum you can get from adding two digits is $18$, when both digits are $9$. But that needs the result of your first step to be $99$, which we've said it can't be. But we know it's a multiple of $9$, meaning its digits add up to a multiple of $9$. Since they can't add up to $18$, the only available multiple of $9$ is $9$.



      Second way: How do you get from, say, $18$ to $27$? To add $9$ you can add $10$, which increases the first digit by $1$, then subtract $1$, which reduces the second digit by $1$. When you add the digits, the two changes cancel out and the digits still sum to $9$. Thinking of $9$ as $09$, this works all the way up from $9$ to $90$ and only goes wrong when you get to $99$—which is too big to be one of the options so the sum is always $9$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3034552%2fstrange-sum-that-always-end-up-with-9%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        1












        $begingroup$

        I will give a formal proof for numbers with $4$ digits. You can think about how to generalize it (Edit: or refer to @fleablood's answer who gave a formal proof for arbitrarily many digits).



        Let $n=abcd$ be a number where $0leq a,b,c,dleq 9$ are it's digits. For example if $n=4821$ then $a=4,b=8,c=2,d=1$.



        Another way to write $n$ is as $n=acdot 1000 + bcdot 100 +c cdot 10 +d$.



        On the other hand the sum of digits is $a+b+c+d$.



        so $$n - text{The sum of digits} = acdot 1000 + bcdot 100 + ccdot 10 + d -a-b-c-d$$
        The right hand side turns out to be $acdot 999 + bcdot 99 + ccdot 9$ which is divisible by $9$.



        The second thing that interested you is that the sum of digits of the new number is always divisible by $9$. For this you should refer to @Ross Milikan answer.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          Voted up because it manages both to be a formal proof and avoid advanced notation. (I think $Sigma$ may be advanced for the questioner.)
          $endgroup$
          – timtfj
          Dec 10 '18 at 22:47












        • $begingroup$
          @timtfj Thanks. This is basically why I posted this answer despite the existing answers.
          $endgroup$
          – Yanko
          Dec 10 '18 at 22:54










        • $begingroup$
          Thanks to all of you for your answers. As I am not very advanced in formal math notation, this answer is easiest for me to understand.
          $endgroup$
          – Martin
          Dec 12 '18 at 8:35
















        1












        $begingroup$

        I will give a formal proof for numbers with $4$ digits. You can think about how to generalize it (Edit: or refer to @fleablood's answer who gave a formal proof for arbitrarily many digits).



        Let $n=abcd$ be a number where $0leq a,b,c,dleq 9$ are it's digits. For example if $n=4821$ then $a=4,b=8,c=2,d=1$.



        Another way to write $n$ is as $n=acdot 1000 + bcdot 100 +c cdot 10 +d$.



        On the other hand the sum of digits is $a+b+c+d$.



        so $$n - text{The sum of digits} = acdot 1000 + bcdot 100 + ccdot 10 + d -a-b-c-d$$
        The right hand side turns out to be $acdot 999 + bcdot 99 + ccdot 9$ which is divisible by $9$.



        The second thing that interested you is that the sum of digits of the new number is always divisible by $9$. For this you should refer to @Ross Milikan answer.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          Voted up because it manages both to be a formal proof and avoid advanced notation. (I think $Sigma$ may be advanced for the questioner.)
          $endgroup$
          – timtfj
          Dec 10 '18 at 22:47












        • $begingroup$
          @timtfj Thanks. This is basically why I posted this answer despite the existing answers.
          $endgroup$
          – Yanko
          Dec 10 '18 at 22:54










        • $begingroup$
          Thanks to all of you for your answers. As I am not very advanced in formal math notation, this answer is easiest for me to understand.
          $endgroup$
          – Martin
          Dec 12 '18 at 8:35














        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        I will give a formal proof for numbers with $4$ digits. You can think about how to generalize it (Edit: or refer to @fleablood's answer who gave a formal proof for arbitrarily many digits).



        Let $n=abcd$ be a number where $0leq a,b,c,dleq 9$ are it's digits. For example if $n=4821$ then $a=4,b=8,c=2,d=1$.



        Another way to write $n$ is as $n=acdot 1000 + bcdot 100 +c cdot 10 +d$.



        On the other hand the sum of digits is $a+b+c+d$.



        so $$n - text{The sum of digits} = acdot 1000 + bcdot 100 + ccdot 10 + d -a-b-c-d$$
        The right hand side turns out to be $acdot 999 + bcdot 99 + ccdot 9$ which is divisible by $9$.



        The second thing that interested you is that the sum of digits of the new number is always divisible by $9$. For this you should refer to @Ross Milikan answer.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        I will give a formal proof for numbers with $4$ digits. You can think about how to generalize it (Edit: or refer to @fleablood's answer who gave a formal proof for arbitrarily many digits).



        Let $n=abcd$ be a number where $0leq a,b,c,dleq 9$ are it's digits. For example if $n=4821$ then $a=4,b=8,c=2,d=1$.



        Another way to write $n$ is as $n=acdot 1000 + bcdot 100 +c cdot 10 +d$.



        On the other hand the sum of digits is $a+b+c+d$.



        so $$n - text{The sum of digits} = acdot 1000 + bcdot 100 + ccdot 10 + d -a-b-c-d$$
        The right hand side turns out to be $acdot 999 + bcdot 99 + ccdot 9$ which is divisible by $9$.



        The second thing that interested you is that the sum of digits of the new number is always divisible by $9$. For this you should refer to @Ross Milikan answer.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 10 '18 at 22:20









        YankoYanko

        6,7041529




        6,7041529












        • $begingroup$
          Voted up because it manages both to be a formal proof and avoid advanced notation. (I think $Sigma$ may be advanced for the questioner.)
          $endgroup$
          – timtfj
          Dec 10 '18 at 22:47












        • $begingroup$
          @timtfj Thanks. This is basically why I posted this answer despite the existing answers.
          $endgroup$
          – Yanko
          Dec 10 '18 at 22:54










        • $begingroup$
          Thanks to all of you for your answers. As I am not very advanced in formal math notation, this answer is easiest for me to understand.
          $endgroup$
          – Martin
          Dec 12 '18 at 8:35


















        • $begingroup$
          Voted up because it manages both to be a formal proof and avoid advanced notation. (I think $Sigma$ may be advanced for the questioner.)
          $endgroup$
          – timtfj
          Dec 10 '18 at 22:47












        • $begingroup$
          @timtfj Thanks. This is basically why I posted this answer despite the existing answers.
          $endgroup$
          – Yanko
          Dec 10 '18 at 22:54










        • $begingroup$
          Thanks to all of you for your answers. As I am not very advanced in formal math notation, this answer is easiest for me to understand.
          $endgroup$
          – Martin
          Dec 12 '18 at 8:35
















        $begingroup$
        Voted up because it manages both to be a formal proof and avoid advanced notation. (I think $Sigma$ may be advanced for the questioner.)
        $endgroup$
        – timtfj
        Dec 10 '18 at 22:47






        $begingroup$
        Voted up because it manages both to be a formal proof and avoid advanced notation. (I think $Sigma$ may be advanced for the questioner.)
        $endgroup$
        – timtfj
        Dec 10 '18 at 22:47














        $begingroup$
        @timtfj Thanks. This is basically why I posted this answer despite the existing answers.
        $endgroup$
        – Yanko
        Dec 10 '18 at 22:54




        $begingroup$
        @timtfj Thanks. This is basically why I posted this answer despite the existing answers.
        $endgroup$
        – Yanko
        Dec 10 '18 at 22:54












        $begingroup$
        Thanks to all of you for your answers. As I am not very advanced in formal math notation, this answer is easiest for me to understand.
        $endgroup$
        – Martin
        Dec 12 '18 at 8:35




        $begingroup$
        Thanks to all of you for your answers. As I am not very advanced in formal math notation, this answer is easiest for me to understand.
        $endgroup$
        – Martin
        Dec 12 '18 at 8:35











        2












        $begingroup$

        This is the standard divisibility test for $9$. It is also called "casting out 9s". The remainder on dividing by $9$ is the same as the remainder on dividing the sum of the digits by $9$. It works because $10^n$ always has a remainder of $1$ when dividing by $9$ because, for example, $ 100000=99999+1$






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$


















          2












          $begingroup$

          This is the standard divisibility test for $9$. It is also called "casting out 9s". The remainder on dividing by $9$ is the same as the remainder on dividing the sum of the digits by $9$. It works because $10^n$ always has a remainder of $1$ when dividing by $9$ because, for example, $ 100000=99999+1$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$
















            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            This is the standard divisibility test for $9$. It is also called "casting out 9s". The remainder on dividing by $9$ is the same as the remainder on dividing the sum of the digits by $9$. It works because $10^n$ always has a remainder of $1$ when dividing by $9$ because, for example, $ 100000=99999+1$






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            This is the standard divisibility test for $9$. It is also called "casting out 9s". The remainder on dividing by $9$ is the same as the remainder on dividing the sum of the digits by $9$. It works because $10^n$ always has a remainder of $1$ when dividing by $9$ because, for example, $ 100000=99999+1$







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 10 '18 at 22:13









            Ross MillikanRoss Millikan

            295k23198371




            295k23198371























                2












                $begingroup$

                This is very well known:



                Consider that the number is $N= sum_{k=0}^n a_i 10^k$ where $a_i$ are the digits. Digits. Then the sum of the digits is $S = sum_{k=0}^n a_i$.



                Then $N - S = sum_{k=0}^n a_i(10^k -1)$.



                Now each of the $10^k-1$ is $99999.......9$ which is divisible by $9$. So the whole number $N-S$ is divisible by $9$.



                (Note the last digit, $a_0$ is simply subtracted. You can think of it as $a_0 - a_0 = a_0*10^0 - a_0 = a_0(10^0 - 1) = a_0(1 - 1) = a_0*0 = 0$.)



                ....



                As a result, a number is divisible by $9$ if and only if the sum of its digits are divisible by $9$ so that gives you your second result.



                It also helps us realize if we take a number and divide by $9$ and take the remainder, then the remainder will be the same as the remainder taking the sum of the digits and dividing by $9$ and taking the remainder.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$


















                  2












                  $begingroup$

                  This is very well known:



                  Consider that the number is $N= sum_{k=0}^n a_i 10^k$ where $a_i$ are the digits. Digits. Then the sum of the digits is $S = sum_{k=0}^n a_i$.



                  Then $N - S = sum_{k=0}^n a_i(10^k -1)$.



                  Now each of the $10^k-1$ is $99999.......9$ which is divisible by $9$. So the whole number $N-S$ is divisible by $9$.



                  (Note the last digit, $a_0$ is simply subtracted. You can think of it as $a_0 - a_0 = a_0*10^0 - a_0 = a_0(10^0 - 1) = a_0(1 - 1) = a_0*0 = 0$.)



                  ....



                  As a result, a number is divisible by $9$ if and only if the sum of its digits are divisible by $9$ so that gives you your second result.



                  It also helps us realize if we take a number and divide by $9$ and take the remainder, then the remainder will be the same as the remainder taking the sum of the digits and dividing by $9$ and taking the remainder.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$
















                    2












                    2








                    2





                    $begingroup$

                    This is very well known:



                    Consider that the number is $N= sum_{k=0}^n a_i 10^k$ where $a_i$ are the digits. Digits. Then the sum of the digits is $S = sum_{k=0}^n a_i$.



                    Then $N - S = sum_{k=0}^n a_i(10^k -1)$.



                    Now each of the $10^k-1$ is $99999.......9$ which is divisible by $9$. So the whole number $N-S$ is divisible by $9$.



                    (Note the last digit, $a_0$ is simply subtracted. You can think of it as $a_0 - a_0 = a_0*10^0 - a_0 = a_0(10^0 - 1) = a_0(1 - 1) = a_0*0 = 0$.)



                    ....



                    As a result, a number is divisible by $9$ if and only if the sum of its digits are divisible by $9$ so that gives you your second result.



                    It also helps us realize if we take a number and divide by $9$ and take the remainder, then the remainder will be the same as the remainder taking the sum of the digits and dividing by $9$ and taking the remainder.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    This is very well known:



                    Consider that the number is $N= sum_{k=0}^n a_i 10^k$ where $a_i$ are the digits. Digits. Then the sum of the digits is $S = sum_{k=0}^n a_i$.



                    Then $N - S = sum_{k=0}^n a_i(10^k -1)$.



                    Now each of the $10^k-1$ is $99999.......9$ which is divisible by $9$. So the whole number $N-S$ is divisible by $9$.



                    (Note the last digit, $a_0$ is simply subtracted. You can think of it as $a_0 - a_0 = a_0*10^0 - a_0 = a_0(10^0 - 1) = a_0(1 - 1) = a_0*0 = 0$.)



                    ....



                    As a result, a number is divisible by $9$ if and only if the sum of its digits are divisible by $9$ so that gives you your second result.



                    It also helps us realize if we take a number and divide by $9$ and take the remainder, then the remainder will be the same as the remainder taking the sum of the digits and dividing by $9$ and taking the remainder.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Dec 10 '18 at 22:22

























                    answered Dec 10 '18 at 22:15









                    fleabloodfleablood

                    70.3k22685




                    70.3k22685























                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        To answer just the part about 2-digit numbers:



                        Other answers have explained why the result of subtracting the digits of a number $n$ from $n$ is always divisible by $9$ and that if a number is divisible by $9$, so is the sum of its digits.



                        If $n$ only has two digits, it can't be bigger than $99$. So when you subtract its digits, you get something that's (i) less than $99$, and (ii) divisible by $9$. The only possibilities are $9$, $18$, $27$, $36$, $45$, $54$, $63$, $72$ and $81$.



                        Now, why do their digits always sum to 9? Two ways of looking at it:



                        First way: The biggest sum you can get from adding two digits is $18$, when both digits are $9$. But that needs the result of your first step to be $99$, which we've said it can't be. But we know it's a multiple of $9$, meaning its digits add up to a multiple of $9$. Since they can't add up to $18$, the only available multiple of $9$ is $9$.



                        Second way: How do you get from, say, $18$ to $27$? To add $9$ you can add $10$, which increases the first digit by $1$, then subtract $1$, which reduces the second digit by $1$. When you add the digits, the two changes cancel out and the digits still sum to $9$. Thinking of $9$ as $09$, this works all the way up from $9$ to $90$ and only goes wrong when you get to $99$—which is too big to be one of the options so the sum is always $9$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$


















                          1












                          $begingroup$

                          To answer just the part about 2-digit numbers:



                          Other answers have explained why the result of subtracting the digits of a number $n$ from $n$ is always divisible by $9$ and that if a number is divisible by $9$, so is the sum of its digits.



                          If $n$ only has two digits, it can't be bigger than $99$. So when you subtract its digits, you get something that's (i) less than $99$, and (ii) divisible by $9$. The only possibilities are $9$, $18$, $27$, $36$, $45$, $54$, $63$, $72$ and $81$.



                          Now, why do their digits always sum to 9? Two ways of looking at it:



                          First way: The biggest sum you can get from adding two digits is $18$, when both digits are $9$. But that needs the result of your first step to be $99$, which we've said it can't be. But we know it's a multiple of $9$, meaning its digits add up to a multiple of $9$. Since they can't add up to $18$, the only available multiple of $9$ is $9$.



                          Second way: How do you get from, say, $18$ to $27$? To add $9$ you can add $10$, which increases the first digit by $1$, then subtract $1$, which reduces the second digit by $1$. When you add the digits, the two changes cancel out and the digits still sum to $9$. Thinking of $9$ as $09$, this works all the way up from $9$ to $90$ and only goes wrong when you get to $99$—which is too big to be one of the options so the sum is always $9$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$
















                            1












                            1








                            1





                            $begingroup$

                            To answer just the part about 2-digit numbers:



                            Other answers have explained why the result of subtracting the digits of a number $n$ from $n$ is always divisible by $9$ and that if a number is divisible by $9$, so is the sum of its digits.



                            If $n$ only has two digits, it can't be bigger than $99$. So when you subtract its digits, you get something that's (i) less than $99$, and (ii) divisible by $9$. The only possibilities are $9$, $18$, $27$, $36$, $45$, $54$, $63$, $72$ and $81$.



                            Now, why do their digits always sum to 9? Two ways of looking at it:



                            First way: The biggest sum you can get from adding two digits is $18$, when both digits are $9$. But that needs the result of your first step to be $99$, which we've said it can't be. But we know it's a multiple of $9$, meaning its digits add up to a multiple of $9$. Since they can't add up to $18$, the only available multiple of $9$ is $9$.



                            Second way: How do you get from, say, $18$ to $27$? To add $9$ you can add $10$, which increases the first digit by $1$, then subtract $1$, which reduces the second digit by $1$. When you add the digits, the two changes cancel out and the digits still sum to $9$. Thinking of $9$ as $09$, this works all the way up from $9$ to $90$ and only goes wrong when you get to $99$—which is too big to be one of the options so the sum is always $9$.






                            share|cite|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$



                            To answer just the part about 2-digit numbers:



                            Other answers have explained why the result of subtracting the digits of a number $n$ from $n$ is always divisible by $9$ and that if a number is divisible by $9$, so is the sum of its digits.



                            If $n$ only has two digits, it can't be bigger than $99$. So when you subtract its digits, you get something that's (i) less than $99$, and (ii) divisible by $9$. The only possibilities are $9$, $18$, $27$, $36$, $45$, $54$, $63$, $72$ and $81$.



                            Now, why do their digits always sum to 9? Two ways of looking at it:



                            First way: The biggest sum you can get from adding two digits is $18$, when both digits are $9$. But that needs the result of your first step to be $99$, which we've said it can't be. But we know it's a multiple of $9$, meaning its digits add up to a multiple of $9$. Since they can't add up to $18$, the only available multiple of $9$ is $9$.



                            Second way: How do you get from, say, $18$ to $27$? To add $9$ you can add $10$, which increases the first digit by $1$, then subtract $1$, which reduces the second digit by $1$. When you add the digits, the two changes cancel out and the digits still sum to $9$. Thinking of $9$ as $09$, this works all the way up from $9$ to $90$ and only goes wrong when you get to $99$—which is too big to be one of the options so the sum is always $9$.







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited Dec 11 '18 at 0:41

























                            answered Dec 11 '18 at 0:00









                            timtfjtimtfj

                            2,168420




                            2,168420






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3034552%2fstrange-sum-that-always-end-up-with-9%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Aardman Animations

                                Are they similar matrix

                                “minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis