Spiral Artefact

What’s the next number in this sequence of integers?


5, 14, 19, 23, 28, 32, 37, 41, 46, 50, 55... (A227793 at the OEIS)

It shouldn’t be hard to work out that it’s 64 — the sum-of-digits of n is divisible by 5, i.e., digsum(n) mod 5 = 0. Now try summing the numbers in that sequence:


5 + 14 = 19
19 + 19 = 38
38 + 23 = 61
61 + 28 = 89
89 + 32 = 121
121 + 37 = 158
158 + 41 = 199
199 + 46 = 245
[...]

Here are the cumulative sums as another sequence:


5, 19, 38, 61, 89, 121, 158, 199, 245, 295, 350, 414, 483, 556, 634, 716, 803, 894, 990, 1094, 1203, 1316, 1434, 1556, 1683, 1814, 1950, 2090, 2235, 2389, 2548, 2711, 2879, 3051, 3228, 3409, 3595, 3785, 3980, 4183, 4391, 4603, 4820, 5041, 5267, 5497, 5732, 5976, 6225...

And there’s that cumulative-sum sequence represented as a spiral:

Spiral for cumulative sum of n where digsum(n) mod 5 = 0


You can see how the spiral is created by following 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E… from the center:


ZYXWVU
GFEDCT
H432BS
I501AR
J6789Q
KLMNOP

What about other values for the cumulative sums of digsum(n) mod m = 0? Here’s m = 2,3,4,5,6,7:

Spiral for cumulative sum of n where digsum(n) mod 2 = 0
s1 = 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22…
s2 = 2, 6, 12, 20, 31, 44, 59, 76, 95, 115… (cumulative sum of s1)


sum of digsum(n) mod 3 = 0
s1 = 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33…
s2 = 3, 9, 18, 30, 45, 63, 84, 108, 135, 165…


sum of digsum(n) mod 4 = 0
s1 = 4, 8, 13, 17, 22, 26, 31, 35, 39, 40, 44…
s2 = 4, 12, 25, 42, 64, 90, 121, 156, 195, 235…


sum of digsum(n) mod 5 = 0
s1 = 5, 14, 19, 23, 28, 32, 37, 41, 46, 50, 55…
s2 = 5, 19, 38, 61, 89, 121, 158, 199, 245, 295…


sum of digsum(n) mod 6 = 0
s1 = 6, 15, 24, 33, 39, 42, 48, 51, 57, 60, 66…
s2 = 6, 21, 45, 78, 117, 159, 207, 258, 315, 375…


sum of digsum(n) mod 7 = 0
s1 = 7, 16, 25, 34, 43, 52, 59, 61, 68, 70, 77…
s2 = 7, 23, 48, 82, 125, 177, 236, 297, 365, 435…


The spiral for m = 2 is strange, but the spirals are similar after that. Until m = 8, when something strange happens again:

sum of digsum(n) mod 8 = 0
s1 = 8, 17, 26, 35, 44, 53, 62, 71, 79, 80, 88…
s2 = 8, 25, 51, 86, 130, 183, 245, 316, 395, 475…


Then the spirals return to normal for m = 9, 10:

sum of digsum(n) mod 9 = 0
s1 = 9, 18, 27, 36, 45, 54, 63, 72, 81, 90, 99…
s2 = 9, 27, 54, 90, 135, 189, 252, 324, 405, 495…


sum of digsum(n) mod 10 = 0
s1 = 19, 28, 37, 46, 55, 64, 73, 82, 91, 109, 118…
s2 = 19, 47, 84, 130, 185, 249, 322, 404, 495, 604…


Here’s an animated gif of m = 8 at higher and higher resolution:

sum of digsum(n) mod 8 = 0 (animated gif)


You might think this strange behavior is dependant on the base in which the dig-sum is calculated. It isn’t. Here’s an animated gif for other bases in which the mod-8 spiral behaves strangely:

sum of digsum(n) mod 8 = 0 in base b = 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 (animated gif)


But the mod-8 spiral stops behaving strangely when the spiral is like this, as a diamond:


   W
  XIV
 YJ8HU
ZK927GT
LA3016FS
 MB45ER
  NCDQ
   OP

Now the mod-8 spiral looks like this:

sum of digsum(n) mod 8 = 0 (diamond spiral)


But the mod-4 and mod-9 spirals look like this:

sum of digsum(n) mod 4 = 0 (diamond spiral)


sum of digsum(n) mod 9 = 0 (diamond spiral)


You can also construct the spirals as a triangle, like this:


     U
    VCT
   WD2CS
  XE301AR
 YF456789Q
ZGHIJKLMNOP

Here’s the beginning of the mod-5 triangular spiral:

sum of digsum(n) mod 5 = 0 (triangular spiral) (open in new window for full size)


And the beginning of the mod-8 triangular spiral:

sum of digsum(n) mod 8 = 0 (triangular spiral) (open in new window for full size)


The mod-8 spiral is behaving strangely again. So the strangeness is partly an artefact of the way the spirals are constructed.


Post-Performative Post-Scriptum

“Spiral Artefact”, the title of this incendiary intervention, is of course a tip-of-the-hat to core Black-Sabbath track “Spiral Architect”, off core Black-Sabbath album Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, issued in core Black-Sabbath success-period of 1973.

There are 719 errors in this sentence

Here’s a famous paradox (or a variant of it at least):

• There are two errers in this sentence.

The only visible error is the misspelt “errers”. But if the sentence claims to have two errors while having only one, that is another error and there are two errors after all.

Now for another variant. I’m not sure if I’ve thought this up for myself, but try this sentence:

• There are three errors in this sentence.

There are no visible errors in the sentence. Therefore it has one error: the claim that it has three errors when there is in fact no error. But if it has one error, it’s in error to claim that it has three errors. Therefore the sentence has two errors. And if it has two errors, again it’s in error, because it claims to have three errors while having only two. Therefore it has three errors after all.

The same reasoning can be applied to any integral number of errors:

• There are five errors in this sentence.
• There are 719 errors in this sentence.
• There are 1,000,000 errors in this sentence.
• There are 1,000,000,000 errors in this sentence.

No matter how large the number of errors, the sentence becomes true instantly, because each time the sentence makes a false claim, it makes another error. But those “times of error” don’t take place in time, any more than this equation does:

• 2 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16…

So I think these sentences are instantly true:

• There are infinitely many errors in this sentence.
• There are ∞ errors in this sentence.

But there are infinitely many infinities. Ordinary infinity, the infinity of 1,2,3…, is called ℵ0 or aleph-zero. It’s a countable infinity. Above that comes ℵ1, an uncountable infinity. So does this sentence instantly become true?

• There are ℵ1 errors in this sentence.

I’m not sure. But I think I can argue for the validity of sentences claiming fractional or irrational number of errors:

• There is 1.5 errors in this sentence.
• There are π errors in this sentence.

Let’s have a look at “There is 1.5 errors in this sentence”. There are no visible errors, so there’s one error: the claim that sentence contains 1.5 errors. So now there seems to be another error: the sentence has one error but claims to have 1.5 errors. But does it therefore have two errors? No, because if it has two errors, it’s still in error and has three errors. And that generates another error and another and another, and so on for ever. The sentence becomes unstoppably and infinitely false.

So let’s go back to the point at which the sentence contains one error. Now, the difference between 1 error and 1.5 errors is small — less than a full error. So how big is the error of claiming to have 1.5 errors when having 1 error? Well, it’s obviously 0.5 of an error. So the sentence contains 1.5 errors after all.

Now for “There are π errors in this sentence”. There are no visible errors, so there’s one error: the claim that the sentence contains π errors. Therefore it contains one error. But it claims to have π errors, so it has another error. And if it has 2 errors and claims to have π errors, it has another and third error. But if it has three errors and claims to have π error, it’s still in error. But only slightly — it’s now committing a small amount of an error. How much? It can only be 0.14159265… of an error. Therefore it’s committing 3.14159265… = π errors and is a true sentence.

Now try:

• There is -1 error in this sentence.

What is a negative error? A truth. So I think that sentence is valid too. But I can’t think of how to use i, or the square root of -1, in a sentence like that.

H₂Oenometry

You have two glasses each filled with exactly the same amount of liquid. One contains water, the other contains wine. First, take a teaspoon of water from the water glass and pour it into the wine glass. Next stir the wine and water until well mixed. Then take a teaspoon of the water-and-wine mixture and pour it into the glass of water.

The question now is: Is there more wine in the water glass than water in the wine glass, or is there less? (from World’s Most Baffling Puzzles, Charles Barry Townsend, Sterling, New York, 1991)

(Scroll down for answer)


Post-Performative Post-Scriptum

Oenometry means “wine-measurement”, from ancient Greek οἶνος, oinos, “wine”, + μετρία, metria, “measurement”. Its standard pronunciation would be “ee-NOM-ett-ry”, but you could conceivably say “oh-een-NOM-ett-ry” or “oi-NOM-ett-ry”.


Discussion of the answer

The original question is fair but worded to send you astray. By using the words “glass” and “teaspoon”, it creates distinct images in your mind: those of an unvarying teaspoon and of two glasses with identical-but-varying amounts of wine and water in them. So you’re guided away from considering that the contents of the glasses can be measured in teaspoons too. If you think not in teaspoons but in unspecified units (of liquid measure), it’s easier to see the truth.

If the two glasses each contain n units of liquid, by transferring water to the wine you’re adding 1 unit of water to n units of wine.

Therefore the wine glass contains n+1 units of mixed wine-and-water, of which n units are wine and 1 unit is water. Let’s say n+1 = n1.

Consider that 1 unit of that mixture contains n/n1 parts of wine and 1/n1 parts of water: n/n1 + 1/n1 = (n+1)/n1 = n1/n1 = 1 unit.

Now, if one unit of the mixture is transferred to the water glass, you take n/n1 units of wine from n units of wine in the wine glass: n – n/n1 = n-1 + 1/n1. You also take 1/n1 units of water from 1 unit of water in the wine glass: 1 – 1/n1 = (n1-1)/n1 = n/n1. So the wine glass now contains n-1 + 1/n1 units of wine and n/n1 of a unit of water.

When you add that unit to the (n-1) units of water in the water glass, it will contain (n-1) + 1/n1 units of water and n/n1 of unit of wine:

Wine glass: n-1 + 1/n1 units of wine and n/n1 of a unit of water
Water glass: n-1 + 1/n1 units of water and n/n1 of a unit of wine

Therefore, however much water and wine you start with, in the end there will be as much water in the wine glass as there is wine in the water glass. For some concrete examples:

Example #1

1. Start

Water glass: 2 teaspoons of water
Wine glass: 2 teaspoons of wine

2. Transfer water to wine glass and mix:

Water glass: 2 tsp of water – 1 tsp = 1 tsp of water
Wine glass: 2 tsp of wine + 1 tsp of water = 3 tsp of which 2/3 is wine, 1/3 is water

3. Transfer wine-and-water mixture to water glass:

One tsp of wine-and-water mixture = 2/3 tsp of wine + 1/3 tsp of water

Therefore:

Wine glass: 2 tsp of wine – 2/3 tsp of wine = 1 and 1/3 tsp of wine; 1 tsp of water – 1/3 tsp of water = 2/3 tsp of water
Water glass: 1 tsp of water + 1/3 tsp of water = 1 and 1/3 tsp of water; 0 tsp of wine + 2/3 tsp of wine = 2/3 tsp of wine

4. Finish

Wine glass contains: 1 and 1/3 tsp of wine, 2/3 tsp of water
Water glass contains: 1 and 1/3 tsp of water, 2/3 tsp of wine


Example #2

1. Start

Water glass: 10 teaspoons of water
Wine glass: 10 teaspoons of wine

Transfer water to wine glass and mix:

Water glass: 10 tsp of water – 1 tsp = 9 tsp of water
Wine glass: 10 tsp of wine + 1 tsp of water = 11 tsp of liquid of which 10/11 is wine, 1/11 is water

Transfer wine-and-water mixture to water glass:

One tsp of wine-and-water mixture = 10/11 tsp of wine + 1/11 tsp of water

Therefore:

Wine glass: 10 tsp of wine – 10/11 tsp of wine = 9 and 1/11 tsp of wine; 1 tsp of water – 1/11 tsp of water = 10/11 tsp of water
Water glass: 9 tsp of water + 1/11 tsp of water = 9 and 1/11 tsp of water; 0 tsp of wine + 10/11 tsp of wine = 10/11 tsp of wine

4. Finish

Wine glass contains: 9 and 1/11 tsp of wine, 10/11 tsp of water
Water glass contains: 9 and 1/11 tsp of water, 10/11 tsp of wine

RevNumSum

If you take an integer, n, and reverse its digits to get the integer r, there are three possibilities:


n > r (e.g. 85236 > 63258)
n < r (e.g. 17783 < 38771)
n = r (e.g. 45154 = 45154)

If n = r, n is a palindrome. If n > r, I call n a major number. If n < r, I call n a minor number. And here are the minor and major numbers represented as white squares on an Ulam-like spiral (the negative of a minor spiral is a major spiral, and vice versa — sometimes one looks better than the other):

b=2 (minor numbers)


b=3


b=4


b=5


b=6


b=7 (major numbers)


b=8 (minor numbers)


b=9 (mjn)


b=10 (mjn)


b=11 (mjn)


b=12 (mjn)


b=13 (mjn)


b=14 (mjn)


b=15 (mjn)


b=16 (mjn)


b=17 (mjn)


b=18 (mjn)


b=19 (mjn)


b=20 (mjn)


Minor numbers, b=2..20 (animated)


Now let’s look at a sequence formed by summing the reversed numbers, minor ones, major ones and palindromes. Here are the standard integers:


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17...

If you sum the integers, you get what are called the triangular numbers:


1 = 1
3 = 1 + 2
6 = 1 + 2 + 3
10 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4
15 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5
21 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6
28 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7
36 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8
45 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9
55 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10
66 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11
78 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12
91 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13
105 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14
120 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15
136 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16
153 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17
171 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18
190 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19
210 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20

But what happens if you reverse the integers before summing them? Here side-by-side are the triangular numbers and the underlined revnumsums (as they might be called):


45 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9
45 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9
55 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10
46 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 1
66 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11
57 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 1 + 11
78 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12
78 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 1 + 11 + 21
91 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13
109 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 1 + 11 + 21 + 31
105 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14
150 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 1 + 11 + 21 + 31 + 41
120 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15
201 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 1 + 11 + 21 + 31 + 41 + 51
136 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16
262 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 1 + 11 + 21 + 31 + 41 + 51 + 61
153 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17
333 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 1 + 11 + 21 + 31 + 41 + 51 + 61 + 71
171 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18
414 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 1 + 11 + 21 + 31 + 41 + 51 + 61 + 71 + 81
190 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19
505 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 1 + 11 + 21 + 31 + 41 + 51 + 61 + 71 + 81 + 91
210 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20
507 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 1 + 11 + 21 + 31 + 41 + 51 + 61 + 71 + 81 + 91
+ 2

Unlike triangular numbers, revnumsums are dependent on the base they’re calculated in. In base 2, the revnumsum is always smaller than the triangular number, except at step 1. In base 3, the revnumsum is equal to the triangular number at steps 1, 2 and 15 (= 120 in base 3). Otherwise it’s smaller than the triangular number.

And in higher bases? In bases > 3, the revnumsum rises and falls above the equivalent triangular number. When it’s higher, it tends towards a maximum height of (base+1)/4 * triangular number.

Free-Wheel Ferning

Photo of unrolling fern frond, frondlets and frontletlets (from Free Photos)


Elsewhere Other-Engageable

Farnsicht — beautiful black-and-white photograph of ferns by Karl Blossfeldt


Post-Performative Post-Scriptum

“Free-Wheel Ferning” is a pun on the title of core Judas-Priest track “Free-Wheel Burning”, off core Judas-Priest album Defenders of the Faith, issued in core Judas-Priest success-period of 1984.

Palindrought

The alchemists dreamed of turning dross into gold. In mathematics, you can actually do that, metaphorically speaking. If palindromes are gold and non-palindromes are dross, here is dross turning into gold:


22 = 10 + 12
222 = 10 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 23 + 24
484 = 10 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 23 + 24 + 25 + 26 + 27 + 28 + 29 + 30 + 31 + 32 + 34
555 = 10 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 23 + 24 + 25 + 26 + 27 + 28 + 29 + 30 + 31 + 32 + 34 + 35 + 36
2002 = nonpalsum(10,67)
36863 = nonpalsum(10,286)
45954 = nonpalsum(10,319)
80908 = nonpalsum(10,423)
113311 = nonpalsum(10,501)
161161 = nonpalsum(10,598)
949949 = nonpalsum(10,1417)
8422248 = nonpalsum(10,4136)
13022031 = nonpalsum(10,5138)
14166141 = nonpalsum(10,5358)
16644661 = nonpalsum(10,5806)
49900994 = nonpalsum(10,10045)
464939464 = nonpalsum(10,30649)
523434325 = nonpalsum(10,32519)
576656675 = nonpalsum(10,34132)
602959206 = nonpalsum(10,34902)
[...]

The palindromes don’t seem to stop arriving. But something unexpected happens when you try to turn gold into gold. If you sum palindromes to get palindromes, you’re soon hit by what you might call a palindrought, where no palindromes appear:


1 = 1
3 = 1 + 2
6 = 1 + 2 + 3
111 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 11 + 22 + 33
353 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 11 + 22 + 33 + 44 + 55 + 66 + 77
7557 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 11 + 22 + 33 + 44 + 55 + 66 + 77 + 88 + 99 + 101 + 111 + 121 + 131 + 141 + 151 + 161 + 171 + 181 + 191 + 202 + 212 + 222 + 232 + 242 + 252 + 262 + 272 + 282 + 292 + 303 + 313 + 323 + 333 + 343 + 353 + 363 + 373 + 383
2376732 = palsum(1,21512)

That’s sequence A046488 at the OEIS. And I suspect that the sequence is complete and that the palindrought never ends. For some evidence of that, here’s an interesting pattern that emerges if you look at palsums of 1 to repdigits 9[…]9:


50045040 = palsum(1,99999)
50045045040 = palsum(1,9999999)
50045045045040 = palsum(1,999999999)
50045045045045040 = palsum(1,99999999999)
50045045045045045040 = palsum(1,9999999999999)
50045045045045045045040 = palsum(1,999999999999999)
50045045045045045045045040 = palsum(1,99999999999999999)
50045045045045045045045045040 = palsum(1,9999999999999999999)
50045045045045045045045045045040 = palsum(1,999999999999999999999)

As the sums get bigger, the carries will stop sweeping long enough and the sums may fall into semi-regular patterns of non-palindromic numbers like 50045040. If you try higher bases like base 909, you get more palindromes by summing palindromes, but a palindrought arrives in the end there too:


1 = palsum(1)
3 = palsum(1,2)
6 = palsum(1,3)
A = palsum(1,4)
[...]
66 = palsum(1,[104]) (palindromes = 43)
LL = palsum(1,[195]) (44)
[37][37] = palsum(1,[259]) (45)
[73][73] = palsum(1,[364]) (46)
[114][114] = palsum(1,[455]) (47)
[172][172] = palsum(1,[559]) (48)
[369][369] = palsum(1,[819]) (49)
6[466]6 = palsum(1,[104][104]) (50)
L[496]L = palsum(1,[195][195]) (51)
[37][528][37] = palsum(1,[259][259]) (52)
[73][600][73] = palsum(1,[364][364]) (53)
[114][682][114] = palsum(1,[455][455]) (54)
[172][798][172] = palsum(1,[559][559]) (55)
[291][126][291] = palsum(1,[726][726]) (56)
[334][212][334] = palsum(1,[778][778]) (57)
[201][774][830][774][201] = palsum(1,[605][707][605]) (58)
[206][708][568][708][206] = palsum(1,[613][115][613]) (59)
[456][456][569][569][456][456] = palsum(1,11[455]11) (60)
22[456][454][456]22 = palsum(1,21012) (61)

Note the palindrome for palsum(1,21012). All odd bases higher than 3 seem to produce a palindrome for 1 to 21012 in that base (21012 in base 5 = 1382 in base 10, 2012 in base 7 = 5154 in base 10, and so on):


2242422 = palsum(1,21012) (base=5)
2253522 = palsum(1,21012) (b=7)
2275722 = palsum(1,21012) (b=11)
2286822 = palsum(1,21012) (b=13)
2297922 = palsum(1,21012) (b=15)
22A8A22 = palsum(1,21012) (b=17)
22B9B22 = palsum(1,21012) (b=19)
22CAC22 = palsum(1,21012) (b=21)
22DBD22 = palsum(1,21012) (b=23)

And here’s another interesting pattern created by summing squares in base 9 (where 17 = 16 in base 10, 40 = 36 in base 10, and so on):


1 = squaresum(1)
5 = squaresum(1,4)
33 = squaresum(1,17)
111 = squaresum(1,40)
122221 = squaresum(1,4840)
123333321 = squaresum(1,503840)
123444444321 = squaresum(1,50483840)
123455555554321 = squaresum(1,5050383840)
123456666666654321 = squaresum(1,505048383840)
123456777777777654321 = squaresum(1,50505038383840)
123456788888888887654321 = squaresum(1,5050504838383840)

Then a palindrought strikes again. But you don’t get a palindrought in the triangular numbers, or numbers created by summing the integers, palindromic and non-palindromic alike:


1 = 1
3 = 1 + 2
6 = 1 + 2 + 3
55 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10
66 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11
171 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18
595 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 + 26 + 27 + 28 + 29 + 30 + 31 + 32 + 33 + 34
666 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 + 26 + 27 + 28 + 29 + 30 + 31 + 32 + 33 + 34 + 35 + 36
3003 = palsum(1,77)
5995 = palsum(1,109)
8778 = palsum(1,132)
15051 = palsum(1,173)
66066 = palsum(1,363)
617716 = palsum(1,1111)
828828 = palsum(1,1287)
1269621 = palsum(1,1593)
1680861 = palsum(1,1833)
3544453 = palsum(1,2662)
5073705 = palsum(1,3185)
5676765 = palsum(1,3369)
6295926 = palsum(1,3548)
35133153 = palsum(1,8382)
61477416 = palsum(1,11088)
178727871 = palsum(1,18906)
1264114621 = palsum(1,50281)
1634004361 = palsum(1,57166)
5289009825 = palsum(1,102849)
6172882716 = palsum(1,111111)
13953435931 = palsum(1,167053)
16048884061 = palsum(1,179158)
30416261403 = palsum(1,246642)
57003930075 = palsum(1,337650)
58574547585 = palsum(1,342270)
66771917766 = palsum(1,365436)
87350505378 = palsum(1,417972)
[...]

If 617716 = palsum(1,1111) and 6172882716 = palsum(1,111111), what is palsum(1,11111111)? Try it for yourself — there’s an easy formula for the triangular numbers.

Fourtoshiki

I hadn’t realized that sudokus could be witty until earlier this year, when I did one that literally made me laugh, because the solutions were so clever and quirky. Foolishly, I neglected to make a note of the sudoku so I could reproduce it. But I haven’t made that mistake with this futoshiki:

Using more-than and less-than signs to deduce values, fill each line and column with the numbers 1 to 5 so that no number occurs twice in the same row or column

It’s not witty like that lost sudoku, but I think futoshikis are even more beautiful and enjoyable than sudokus, because they’re even more elemental. They’re also rooted in the magic of binary, thanks to the more-than / less-than clues. And when there’s only one number on the original grid, completing them feels like growing a flower from a seed.

The Glamor of Gamma

The factorial function, n!, is easy to understand. You simply take an integer and multiply it by all integers smaller than it (by convention, 0! = 1):

0! = 1
1! = 1
2! = 2 = 2*1
3! = 6 = 3*2*1
4! = 24 = 4*3*2*1
5! = 120 = 5*4*3*2*1
6! = 720 = 6*120 = 6*5!
7! = 5040
8! = 40320
9! = 362880
10! = 3628800
11! = 39916800
12! = 479001600
13! = 6227020800
14! = 87178291200
15! = 1307674368000
16! = 20922789888000
17! = 355687428096000
18! = 6402373705728000
19! = 121645100408832000
20! = 2432902008176640000

The gamma function, Γ(n), isn’t so easy to understand. It allows you to find the factorials of not just the integers, but everything between the integers, like fractions, square roots, and transcendental numbers like π. Don’t ask me how! And don’t ask me how you get this very beautiful and unexpected result:

Γ(1/2) = √π = 1.77245385091...

But a blog called Mathematical Enchantments can tell you more:

The Square Root of Pi


Post-Performative Post-Scriptum

glamour | glamor, n. Originally Scots, introduced into the literary language by Scott. A corrupt form of grammar n.; for the sense compare gramarye n. (and French grimoire ), and for the form glomery n. 1. Magic, enchantment, spell; esp. in the phrase to cast the glamour over one. 2. a. A magical or fictitious beauty attaching to any person or object; a delusive or alluring charm. b. Charm; attractiveness; physical allure, esp. feminine beauty; frequently attributive colloquial (originally U.S.). — Oxford English Dictionary

Russell in Your Head-Roe (Re-Visited)

“Ordinary language is totally unsuited for expressing what physics really asserts, since the words of everyday life are not sufficiently abstract. Only mathematics and mathematical logic can say as little as the physicist means to say.” — Bertrand Russell, The Scientific Outlook (1931)


Previously pre-posted

Russell in Your Head-Roe — Bertrand Russell on mathematics
A Ladd Inane — Bertrand Russell on solipsism
Math Matters — Bertrand Russell on math and physics
Whip Poor Wilhelm — Bertrand Russell on Friedrich Nietzsche