Category Archives: Base Behavior

Magistra Rules the Waves

by in Base Behavior, Binary numbers, Digit-sums, Integer Sequences, Magistra Mundi, Mathematics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

One of my favourite integer sequences has the simple formula n(i) = n(i-1) + digitsum(n(i-1)). If it’s seeded with 1, its first few terms go like this:

n(1) = 1
n(2) = n(1) + digitsum(n(1)) = 1 + digitsum(1) = 2
n(3) = 2 + digitsum(2) = 4
n(4) = 4 + digitsum(4) = 8
n(5) = 8 + digitsum(8) = 16
n(6) = 16 + digitsum(16) = 16 + 1+6 = 16 + 7 = 23
n(7) = 23 + digitsum(23) = 23 + 2+3 = 23 + 5 = 28
n(8) = 28 + digitsum(28) = 28 + 2+8 = 28 + 10 = 38

As a sequence, it looks like this:

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 23, 28, 38, 49, 62, 70, 77, 91, 101, 103, 107, 115, 122, 127, 137, 148, 161, 169, 185, 199, 218, 229, 242, 250, 257, 271, 281, 292, 305, 313, 320, 325, 335, 346, 359, 376, 392, 406, 416, 427, 440, 448, 464, 478, 497, 517, 530, 538, 554, 568, 587, 607, 620, 628, 644, 658, 677, 697, 719, 736, 752, 766, 785, 805, 818, 835, 851, 865, 884, 904, 917, 934, 950, 964, 983, 1003…

Given a number at random, is there a quick way to say whether it appears in the sequence seeded with 1? Not that I know, with one exception. If the number is divisible by 3, it doesn’t appear, at least in base 10. In base 2, that rule doesn’t apply:

n(1) = 1
n(2) = 1 + digitsum(1) = 10 = 1 + 1 = 2
n(3) = 10 + digitsum(10) = 10 + 1 = 11 = 2 + 1 = 3
n(4) = 11 + digitsum(11) = 11 + 1+1 = 101 = 3 + 2 = 5
n(5) = 101 + digitsum(101) = 101 + 1+0+1 = 111 = 5 + 2 = 7
n(6) = 111 + digitsum(111) = 111 + 11 = 1010 = 7 + 3 = 10
n(7) = 1010 + digitsum(1010) = 1010 + 10 = 1100 = 10 + 2 = 12
n(8) = 1100 + digitsum(1100) = 1100 + 10 = 1110 = 12 + 2 = 14

1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 36, 38, 41, 44, 47, 52, 55, 60, 64, 65, 67, 70, 73, 76, 79, 84, 87, 92, 96, 98, 101, 105, 109, 114, 118, 123, 129, 131, 134, 137, 140, 143, 148, 151, 156, 160, 162, 165, 169, 173, 178, 182, 187, 193, 196, 199, 204, 208, 211, 216, 220, 225, 229, 234, 239, 246, 252, 258, 260, 262, 265, 268, 271, 276, 279, 284, 288, 290, 293, 297, 301, 306, 310, 315, 321, 324, 327, 332, 336, 339, 344, 348, 353, 357, 362, 367, 374…

What patterns are there in these sequences? It’s easier to check when they’re represented graphically, so I converted them into patterns à la the Ulam spiral, where n is represented as a dot on a spiral of integers. This is the spiral for base 10:

ulambase10Base 10

And these are the spirals for bases 2 and 3:

ulambase2

Base 2

ulambase3

Base 3

These sequences look fairly random to me: there are no obvious patterns in the jumps from n(i) to n(i+1), i.e. in the values for digitsum(n(i)). Now try the spirals for bases 9 and 33:

ulambase9

Base 9

ulambase33

Base 33

Patterns have appeared: there is some regularity in the jumps. You can see these regularities more clearly if you represent digitsum(n(i)) as a graph, with n(i) on the x axis and digitsum(n(i)) on the y axis. If the graph starts with n(i) = 1 on the lower left and proceeds left-right, left-right up the screen, it looks like this in base 10:

base10

Base 10 (click to enlarge)

Here are bases 2 and 3:

base2

Base 2

base3

Base 3

The jumps seem fairly random. Now try bases 9, 13, 16, 17, 25, 33 and 49:

base9

Base 9

base13

Base 13

base16

Base 16

base17

Base 17

base25

Base 25

base33

Base 33

base49

Base 49

In some bases, the formula n(i) = n(i-1) + digitsum(n(i-1)) generates mild randomness. In others, it generates strong regularity, like waves rolling ashore under a steady wind. I don’t understand why, but regularity seems to occur in bases that are one more than a power of 2 and also in some bases that are primes or squares.

Elsewhere other-posted:

• Mathematica Magistra Mundi
8200_idf_insignia

Dig Sum Fib

by in Base Behavior, Digit-sums, Fibonacci Sequence, Mathematics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Fibonacci sequence is an infinitely rich sequence based on a very simple rule: add the previous two numbers. If the first two numbers are 1 and 1, the sequence begins like this:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025…

Plainly, the numbers increase for ever. The hundredth Fibonacci number is 354,224,848,179,261,915,075, for example, and the two-hundredth is 280,571,172,992,510,140,037,611,932,413,038,677,189,525. But there are variants on the Fibonacci sequence that don’t increase for ever. The standard rule is n(i) = n(i-2) + n(i-1). What if the rule becomes n(i) = digitsum(n(i-2)) + digitsum(n(i-1))? Now the sequence falls into a loop, like this:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 12, 7, 10, 8, 9, 17, 17, 16, 15, 13, 10, 5, 6, 11, 8, 10, 9, 10, 10, 2, 3… (length=28)

But that’s in base 10. Here are the previous bases:

1, 1, 2, 2, 2… (base=2) (length=5)
1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3… (b=3) (l=7)
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 3… (b=4) (l=12)
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 5, 5, 2, 3… (b=5) (l=10)
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 8, 6, 4, 5, 9, 9, 8, 7, 5, 7, 7, 4, 6, 5, 6, 6, 2, 3… (b=6) (l=24)
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 7, 3, 4, 7, 5, 6, 11, 11, 10, 9, 7, 4, 5, 9, 8, 5, 7, 6, 7, 7, 2, 3… (b=7) (l=28)
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 6, 7, 13, 13, 12, 11, 9, 6, 8, 7, 8, 8, 2, 3… (b=8) (l=20)
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 13, 10, 7, 9, 8, 9, 9, 2, 3… (b=9) (l=16)

Apart from base 2, all the bases repeat with (2, 3), which is set up in each case by (base, base) = (10, 10) in that base, equivalent to (1, 1). All bases > 2 appear to repeat with (2, 3), but I don’t understand why. The length of the sequence varies widely. Here it is in bases 29, 30 and 31:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 27, 33, 32, 9, 13, 22, 35, 29, 8, 9, 17, 26, 43, 41, 28, 41, 41, 26, 39, 37, 20, 29, 21, 22, 43, 37, 24, 33, 29, 6, 7, 13, 20, 33, 25, 30, 27, 29, 28, 29, 29, 2, 3… (b=29) (l=52)

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 26, 31, 28, 30, 29, 30, 30, 2, 3 (b=30) (l=18)

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 25, 29, 54, 53, 47, 40, 27, 37, 34, 11, 15, 26, 41, 37, 18, 25, 43, 38, 21, 29, 50, 49, 39, 28, 37, 35, 12, 17, 29, 46, 45, 31, 16, 17, 33, 20, 23, 43, 36, 19, 25, 44, 39, 23, 32, 25, 27, 52, 49, 41, 30, 41, 41, 22, 33, 25, 28, 53, 51, 44, 35, 19, 24, 43, 37, 20, 27, 47, 44, 31, 15, 16, 31, 17, 18, 35, 23, 28, 51, 49, 40, 29, 39, 38, 17, 25, 42, 37, 19, 26, 45, 41, 26, 37, 33, 10, 13, 23, 36, 29, 35, 34, 9, 13, 22, 35, 27, 32, 29, 31, 30, 31, 31, 2, 3 (b=31) (l=124)

The sequence for base 77 is short like that for base 30:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 68, 81, 73, 78, 75, 77, 76, 77, 77, 2, 3 (b=77) (l=22)

But the sequence for base 51 is this:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 39, 44, 83, 77, 60, 37, 47, 84, 81, 65, 46, 61, 57, 18, 25, 43, 68, 61, 29, 40, 69, 59, 28, 37, 65, 52, 17, 19, 36, 55, 41, 46, 87, 83, 70, 53, 23, 26, 49, 75, 74, 49, 73, 72, 45, 67, 62, 29, 41, 70, 61, 31, 42, 73, 65, 38, 53, 41, 44, 85, 79, 64, 43, 57, 50, 57, 57, 14, 21, 35, 56, 41, 47, 88, 85, 73, 58, 31, 39, 70, 59, 29, 38, 67, 55, 22, 27, 49, 76, 75, 51, 26, 27, 53, 30, 33, 63, 46, 59, 55, 14, 19, 33, 52, 35, 37, 72, 59, 31, 40, 71, 61, 32, 43, 75, 68, 43, 61, 54, 15, 19, 34, 53, 37, 40, 77, 67, 44, 61, 55, 16, 21, 37, 58, 45, 53, 48, 51, 49, 50, 99, 99, 98, 97, 95, 92, 87, 79, 66, 45, 61, 56, 17, 23, 40, 63, 53, 16, 19, 35, 54, 39, 43, 82, 75, 57, 32, 39, 71, 60, 31, 41, 72, 63, 35, 48, 83, 81, 64, 45, 59, 54, 13, 17, 30, 47, 77, 74, 51, 25, 26, 51, 27, 28, 55, 33, 38, 71, 59, 30, 39, 69, 58, 27, 35, 62, 47, 59, 56, 15, 21, 36, 57, 43, 50, 93, 93, 86, 79, 65, 44, 59, 53, 12, 15, 27, 42, 69, 61, 30, 41, 71, 62, 33, 45, 78, 73, 51, 24, 25, 49, 74, 73, 47, 70, 67, 37, 54, 41, 45, 86, 81, 67, 48, 65, 63, 28, 41, 69, 60, 29, 39, 68, 57, 25, 32, 57, 39, 46, 85, 81, 66, 47, 63, 60, 23, 33, 56, 39, 45, 84, 79, 63, 42, 55, 47, 52, 49, 51, 50, 51, 51, 2, 3… (b=51) (l=304)

The Rite of Sling

by in Base Behavior, Digit-sums, Mathematics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Duels are interesting things. Flashman made his name in one and earnt an impressive scar in another. Maupassant explored their psychology and so did his imitator Maugham. Game theory might be a good guide on how to fight one, but I’d like to look at something simpler: the concept of duelling numbers.

How would two numbers fight? One way is to use digit-sums. Find the digit-sum of each number, then take it away from the other number. Repeat until one or both numbers <= 0, like this:

function duel(n1,n2){
print(n1," <-> ",n2);
do{
s1=digitsum(n1);
s2=digitsum(n2);
n1 -= s2;
n2 -= s1;
print(” -> ",n1," <-> ",n2);
}while(n1>0 && n2>0);
}

Suppose n1 = 23 and n2 = 22. At the first step, s1 = digitsum(23) = 5 and s2 = digitsum(22) = 4. So n1 = 23 – 4 = 19 and n2 = 22 – 5 = 17. And what happens in the end?

23 ↔ 22 ➔ 19 ↔ 17 ➔ 11 ↔ 7 ➔ 4 ↔ 5 ➔ -1 ↔ 1

So 23 loses the duel with 22. Now try 23 vs 24:

23 ↔ 24 ➔ 17 ↔ 19 ➔ 7 ↔ 11 ➔ 5 ↔ 4 ➔ 1 ↔ -1

23 wins the duel with 24. The gap can be bigger. For example, 85 and 100 are what might be called David and Goliath numbers, because the David of 85 beats the Goliath of 100:

85 ↔ 100 ➔ 84 ↔ 87 ➔ 69 ↔ 75 ➔ 57 ↔ 60 ➔ 51 ↔ 48 ➔ 39 ↔ 42 ➔ 33 ↔ 30 ➔ 30 ↔ 24 ➔ 24 ↔ 21 ➔ 21 ↔ 15 ➔ 15 ↔ 12 ➔ 12 ↔ 6 ➔ 6 ↔ 3 ➔ 3 ↔ -3

999 and 1130 are also David and Goliath numbers:

999 ↔ 1130 ➔ 994 ↔ 1103 ➔ 989 ↔ 1081 ➔ 979 ↔ 1055 ➔ 968 ↔ 1030 ➔ 964 ↔ 1007 ➔ 956 ↔ 988 ➔ 931 ↔ 968 ➔ 908 ↔ 955 ➔ 889 ↔ 938 ➔ 869 ↔ 913 ➔ 856 ↔ 890 ➔ 839 ↔ 871 ➔ 823 ↔ 851 ➔ 809 ↔ 838 ➔ 790 ↔ 821 ➔ 779 ↔ 805 ➔ 766 ↔ 782 ➔ 749 ↔ 763 ➔ 733 ↔ 743 ➔ 719 ↔ 730 ➔ 709 ↔ 713 ➔ 698 ↔ 697 ➔ 676 ↔ 674 ➔ 659 ↔ 655 ➔ 643 ↔ 635 ➔ 629 ↔ 622 ➔ 619 ↔ 605 ➔ 608 ↔ 589 ➔ 586 ↔ 575 ➔ 569 ↔ 556 ➔ 553 ↔ 536 ➔ 539 ↔ 523 ➔ 529 ↔ 506 ➔ 518 ↔ 490 ➔ 505 ↔ 476 ➔ 488 ↔ 466 ➔ 472 ↔ 446 ➔ 458 ↔ 433 ➔ 448 ↔ 416 ➔ 437 ↔ 400 ➔ 433 ↔ 386 ➔ 416 ↔ 376 ➔ 400 ↔ 365 ➔ 386 ↔ 361 ➔ 376 ↔ 344 ➔ 365 ↔ 328 ➔ 352 ↔ 314 ➔ 344 ↔ 304 ➔ 337 ↔ 293 ➔ 323 ↔ 280 ➔ 313 ↔ 272 ➔ 302 ↔ 265 ➔ 289 ↔ 260 ➔ 281 ↔ 241 ➔ 274 ↔ 230 ➔ 269 ↔ 217 ➔ 259 ↔ 200 ➔ 257 ↔ 184 ➔ 244 ↔ 170 ➔ 236 ↔ 160 ➔ 229 ↔ 149 ➔ 215 ↔ 136 ➔ 205 ↔ 128 ➔ 194 ↔ 121 ➔ 190 ↔ 107 ➔ 182 ↔ 97 ➔ 166 ↔ 86 ➔ 152 ↔ 73 ➔ 142 ↔ 65 ➔ 131 ↔ 58 ➔ 118 ↔ 53 ➔ 110 ↔ 43 ➔ 103 ↔ 41 ➔ 98 ↔ 37 ➔ 88 ↔ 20 ➔ 86 ↔ 4 ➔ 82 ↔ -10

You can look in the other direction and find bully numbers, or numbers that beat all numbers smaller than themselves. In base 10, the numbers 2 to 9 obviously do. So do these:

35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 76, 77, 78, 79, 189

In other bases, bullies are sometimes common, sometimes rare. Sometimes they don’t exist at all for n > b. Here are bully numbers for bases 2 to 30:

base=2: 3, 5, 7, 13, 15, 21, 27, 29, 31, 37, 43, 45, 47, 54, 59
b=3: 4, 5, 7, 8, 14
b=4: 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 27, 63
b=5: 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23, 24
b=6: 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 65, 71, 101
b=7: 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 76
b=8: 37, 38, 39, 46, 47, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 95, 103, 111, 119
b=9: 42, 43, 44, 52, 53, 61, 62
b=10: 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 76, 77, 78, 79, 189
b=11: 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 62, 63, 64, 65, 73, 74, 75, 76, 85, 86, 87
b=12: 57, 58, 59
b=13: 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 74, 75, 76, 77, 87, 88, 89, 90, 101, 102, 103, 115, 116, 127, 128, 129
b=14: none (except 2 to 13)
b=15: 116, 117, 118, 119, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 147, 148, 149
b=16: 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 140, 141, 142, 143, 156, 157, 158, 159, 173, 174, 175, 190, 191, 222, 223
b=17: 151, 152, 168, 169, 185, 186
b=18: 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 212, 213, 214, 215
b=19: 242, 243, 244, 245, 246
b=20: none
b=21: 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 206, 207, 208, 209, 227, 228, 229, 230, 248, 249, 250, 251, 270, 271, 272
b=22: 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483
b=23: none
b=24: none
b=25: 271, 272, 273, 274, 296, 297, 298, 299, 322, 323, 324, 348, 349, 372, 373, 374
b=26: none
b=27: none
b=28: none
b=29: 431, 432, 433, 434, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 490, 491, 492, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550
b=30: none

Pair on a D-String

by in √2, Base Behavior, Binary numbers, π, Mathematics, Philosophy, Philosophy of mathematics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What’s special about the binary number 10011 and the ternary number 1001120221? To answer the question, you have to see double. 10011 contains all possible pairs of numbers created from 0 and 1, just as 1001120221 contains all possible pairs created from 0, 1 and 2. And each pair appears exactly once. Now try the quaternary number 10011202130322331. That contains exactly one example of all possible pairs created from 0, 1, 2 and 3.

But there’s something more: in each case, the number is the smallest possible number with that property. As the bases get higher, that gets less obvious. In quinary, or base 5, the smallest number containing all possible pairs is 10011202130314042232433441. The digits look increasingly random. And what about base 10? There are 100 possible pairs of numbers created from the digits 0 to 9, starting with 00, 01, 02… and ending with …97, 98, 99. To accommodate 100 pairs, the all-pair number in base 10 has to be 101 digits long. It’s a string of digits, so let’s call it a d-string:

1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 0, 2, 1, 3, 0, 3, 1, 4, 0, 4, 1, 5, 0, 5, 1, 6, 0, 6, 1, 7, 0, 7, 1, 8, 0, 8, 1, 9, 0, 9, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 2, 6, 2, 7, 2, 8, 2, 9, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3, 6, 3, 7, 3, 8, 3, 9, 4, 4, 5, 4, 6, 4, 7, 4, 8, 4, 9, 5, 5, 6, 5, 7, 5, 8, 5, 9, 6, 6, 7, 6, 8, 6, 9, 7, 7, 8, 7, 9, 8, 8, 9, 9, 1

Again, the digits look increasingly random. They aren’t: they’re strictly determined. The d-string is in harmony. As the digits are generated from the left, they impose restrictions on the digits that appear later. It might appear that you could shift larger digits to the right and make the number smaller, but if you do that you no longer meet the conditions and the d-string collapses into dischord.

Now examine d-strings containing all possible triplets created from the digits of bases 2, 3 and 4:

1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0 in base 2 = 558 in base 10

1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 0, 2, 2, 2, 1, 0 in base 3 = 23203495920756 in base 10

1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0, 3, 0, 0, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 0, 1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 0, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 0, 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 0, 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 0, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 0 in base 4 = 1366872334420014346556556812432766057460 in base 10

Note that there are 8 possible triplets in base 2, so the all-triplet number has to be 10 digits long. In base 10, there are 1000 possible triplets, so the all-triplet number has to be 1002 digits long. Here it is:

1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0, 3, 0, 0, 3, 1, 0, 4, 0, 0, 4, 1, 0, 5, 0, 0, 5, 1, 0, 6, 0, 0, 6, 1, 0, 7, 0, 0, 7, 1, 0, 8, 0, 0, 8, 1, 0, 9, 0, 0, 9, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 0, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, 0, 1, 4, 1, 1, 5, 0, 1, 5, 1, 1, 6, 0, 1, 6, 1, 1, 7, 0, 1, 7, 1, 1, 8, 0, 1, 8, 1, 1, 9, 0, 1, 9, 1, 2, 2, 0, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 0, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 0, 2, 4, 1, 2, 5, 0, 2, 5, 1, 2, 6, 0, 2, 6, 1, 2, 7, 0, 2, 7, 1, 2, 8, 0, 2, 8, 1, 2, 9, 0, 2, 9, 1, 3, 2, 0, 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 0, 3, 3, 1, 3, 4, 0, 3, 4, 1, 3, 5, 0, 3, 5, 1, 3, 6, 0, 3, 6, 1, 3, 7, 0, 3, 7, 1, 3, 8, 0, 3, 8, 1, 3, 9, 0, 3, 9, 1, 4, 2, 0, 4, 2, 1, 4, 3, 0, 4, 3, 1, 4, 4, 0, 4, 4, 1, 4, 5, 0, 4, 5, 1, 4, 6, 0, 4, 6, 1, 4, 7, 0, 4, 7, 1, 4, 8, 0, 4, 8, 1, 4, 9, 0, 4, 9, 1, 5, 2, 0, 5, 2, 1, 5, 3, 0, 5, 3, 1, 5, 4, 0, 5, 4, 1, 5, 5, 0, 5, 5, 1, 5, 6, 0, 5, 6, 1, 5, 7, 0, 5, 7, 1, 5, 8, 0, 5, 8, 1, 5, 9, 0, 5, 9, 1, 6, 2, 0, 6, 2, 1, 6, 3, 0, 6, 3, 1, 6, 4, 0, 6, 4, 1, 6, 5, 0, 6, 5, 1, 6, 6, 0, 6, 6, 1, 6, 7, 0, 6, 7, 1, 6, 8, 0, 6, 8, 1, 6, 9, 0, 6, 9, 1, 7, 2, 0, 7, 2, 1, 7, 3, 0, 7, 3, 1, 7, 4, 0, 7, 4, 1, 7, 5, 0, 7, 5, 1, 7, 6, 0, 7, 6, 1, 7, 7, 0, 7, 7, 1, 7, 8, 0, 7, 8, 1, 7, 9, 0, 7, 9, 1, 8, 2, 0, 8, 2, 1, 8, 3, 0, 8, 3, 1, 8, 4, 0, 8, 4, 1, 8, 5, 0, 8, 5, 1, 8, 6, 0, 8, 6, 1, 8, 7, 0, 8, 7, 1, 8, 8, 0, 8, 8, 1, 8, 9, 0, 8, 9, 1, 9, 2, 0, 9, 2, 1, 9, 3, 0, 9, 3, 1, 9, 4, 0, 9, 4, 1, 9, 5, 0, 9, 5, 1, 9, 6, 0, 9, 6, 1, 9, 7, 0, 9, 7, 1, 9, 8, 0, 9, 8, 1, 9, 9, 0, 9, 9, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 6, 2, 2, 7, 2, 2, 8, 2, 2, 9, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 5, 2, 3, 6, 2, 3, 7, 2, 3, 8, 2, 3, 9, 2, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 2, 4, 6, 2, 4, 7, 2, 4, 8, 2, 4, 9, 2, 5, 3, 2, 5, 4, 2, 5, 5, 2, 5, 6, 2, 5, 7, 2, 5, 8, 2, 5, 9, 2, 6, 3, 2, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2, 6, 7, 2, 6, 8, 2, 6, 9, 2, 7, 3, 2, 7, 4, 2, 7, 5, 2, 7, 6, 2, 7, 7, 2, 7, 8, 2, 7, 9, 2, 8, 3, 2, 8, 4, 2, 8, 5, 2, 8, 6, 2, 8, 7, 2, 8, 8, 2, 8, 9, 2, 9, 3, 2, 9, 4, 2, 9, 5, 2, 9, 6, 2, 9, 7, 2, 9, 8, 2, 9, 9, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 5, 3, 3, 6, 3, 3, 7, 3, 3, 8, 3, 3, 9, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 7, 3, 4, 8, 3, 4, 9, 3, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 7, 3, 5, 8, 3, 5, 9, 3, 6, 4, 3, 6, 5, 3, 6, 6, 3, 6, 7, 3, 6, 8, 3, 6, 9, 3, 7, 4, 3, 7, 5, 3, 7, 6, 3, 7, 7, 3, 7, 8, 3, 7, 9, 3, 8, 4, 3, 8, 5, 3, 8, 6, 3, 8, 7, 3, 8, 8, 3, 8, 9, 3, 9, 4, 3, 9, 5, 3, 9, 6, 3, 9, 7, 3, 9, 8, 3, 9, 9, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 6, 4, 4, 7, 4, 4, 8, 4, 4, 9, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5, 7, 4, 5, 8, 4, 5, 9, 4, 6, 5, 4, 6, 6, 4, 6, 7, 4, 6, 8, 4, 6, 9, 4, 7, 5, 4, 7, 6, 4, 7, 7, 4, 7, 8, 4, 7, 9, 4, 8, 5, 4, 8, 6, 4, 8, 7, 4, 8, 8, 4, 8, 9, 4, 9, 5, 4, 9, 6, 4, 9, 7, 4, 9, 8, 4, 9, 9, 5, 5, 5, 6, 5, 5, 7, 5, 5, 8, 5, 5, 9, 5, 6, 6, 5, 6, 7, 5, 6, 8, 5, 6, 9, 5, 7, 6, 5, 7, 7, 5, 7, 8, 5, 7, 9, 5, 8, 6, 5, 8, 7, 5, 8, 8, 5, 8, 9, 5, 9, 6, 5, 9, 7, 5, 9, 8, 5, 9, 9, 6, 6, 6, 7, 6, 6, 8, 6, 6, 9, 6, 7, 7, 6, 7, 8, 6, 7, 9, 6, 8, 7, 6, 8, 8, 6, 8, 9, 6, 9, 7, 6, 9, 8, 6, 9, 9, 7, 7, 7, 8, 7, 7, 9, 7, 8, 8, 7, 8, 9, 7, 9, 8, 7, 9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 9, 8, 9, 9, 9, 1, 0

Consider the quadruplet number in base 10. There are 10000 possible quadruplets, so the all-quadruplet number is 10003 digits long. And so on. In general, the “all n-tuplet” number in base b contains b^n n-tuplets and is (b^n + n-1) digits long. If b = 10 and n = 4, the d-string starts like this:

1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 3, 1, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0, 0, 4, 1, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 5, 1, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0, 7, 0, 0, 0, 7, 1, 0, 0, 8, 0, 0, 0, 8, 1, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0, 0, 9, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 1, 2, 1, 0, 1, 3, 0, 0, 1, 3, 1, 0, 1, 4, 0, 0, 1, 4, 1, 0, 1, 5, 0, 0, 1, 5, 1, 0, 1, 6, 0, 0, 1, 6, 1, 0, 1, 7, 0, 0, 1, 7, 1, 0, 1, 8, 0, 0, 1, 8, 1, 0, 1, 9, 0, 0, 1, 9, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 2, 1, 1, 0, 2, 2, 0, 0, 2, 2, 1, 0, 2, 3, 0, 0, 2, 3, 1, 0, 2, 4, 0, 0, 2, 4, 1, 0, 2, 5, 0, 0, 2, 5, 1, 0, 2, 6…

What about when n = 100? Now the d-string is ungraspably huge – too big to fit in the known universe. But it starts with 1 followed by a hundred 0s and every digit after that is entirely determined. Perhaps there’s a simple way to calculate any given digit, given its position in the d-string. Either way, what is the ontological status of the d-string for n=100? Does it exist in some Platonic realm of number, independent of physical reality?

Some would say that it does, just like √2 or π or e. I disagree. I don’t believe in a Platonic realm. If the universe or multiverse ceased to exist, numbers and mathematics in general would also cease to exist. But this isn’t to say that mathematics depends on physical reality. It doesn’t. Nor does physical reality depend on mathematics. Rather, physical reality necessarily embodies mathematics, which might be defined as “entity in interrelation”. Humans have invented small-m mathematics, a symbolic way of expressing the physical embodiment of big-m mathematics.

But small-m mathematics is actually more powerful and far-ranging, because it increases the number, range and power of entities and their interaction. Where are √2 and π in physical reality? Nowhere. You could say that early mathematicians saw their shadows, cast from a Platonic realm, and deduced their existence in that realm, but that’s a metaphor. Do all events, like avalanches or thunderstorms, exist in some Platonic realm before they are realized? No, they arise as physical entities interact according to laws of physics. In a more abstract way, √2 and π arise as entities of another kind interact according to laws of logic: the concepts of a square and its diagonal, of a circle and its diameter.

The d-strings discussed above arise from the interaction of simpler concepts: the finite set of digits in a base and the ways in which they can be combined. Platonism is unnecessary: the arc and spray of a fountain are explained by the pressure of the water, the design of the pipes, the arrangement of the nozzles, not by reference to an eternal archetype of water and spray. In small-m mathematics, there are an infinite number of fountains, because small-m mathematics opens a door to a big-U universe, infinitely larger and richer than the small-u universe of physical reality.

Summus

by in Base Behavior, Binary numbers, Digit-sums, Mathematics, Palindromic numbers and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I’m interested in digit-sums and in palindromic numbers. Looking at one, I found the other. It started like this: 9^2 = 81 and 9 = 8 + 1, so digitsum(9^1) = digitsum(9^2). I wondered how long such a sequence of powers could be (excluding powers of 10). I quickly found that the digit-sum of 468 is equal to the digit-sum of its square and cube:

digsum(468) = digsum(219024) = digsum(102503232)

But I couldn’t find any longer sequence, although plenty of other numbers are similar to 468:

digsum(585) = digsum(342225) = digsum(200201625)
digsum(4680) = digsum(21902400) = digsum(102503232000)
digsum(5850) = digsum(34222500) = digsum(200201625000)
digsum(5851) = digsum(34234201) = digsum(200304310051)
digsum(5868) = digsum(34433424) = digsum(202055332032)
digsum(28845) = digsum(832034025) = digsum(24000021451125) […]
digsum(589680) = digsum(347722502400) = digsum(205045005215232000)

What about other bases? First came this sequence:

digsum(2) = digsum(11) (base = 3) (highest power = 2)

Then these:

digsum(4) = digsum(22) = digsum(121) (b=7) (highest power = 3)
digsum(8) = digsum(44) = digsum(242) = digsum(1331) (b=15) (hp=4)
digsum([16]) = digsum(88) = digsum(484) = digsum(2662) = digsum(14641) (b=31) (hp=5)

The pattern continues (a number between square brackets represents a single digit in the base):

digsum([32]) = digsum([16][16]) = digsum(8[16]8) = digsum(4[12][12]4) = digsum(28[12]82) = digsum(15[10][10]51) (b=63) (hp=6)
digsum([64]) = digsum([32][32]) = digsum([16][32][16]) = digsum(8[24][24]8) = digsum(4[16][24][16]4) = digsum(2[10][20][20][10]2) = digsum(16[15][20][15]61) (b=127) (hp=7)
digsum([128]) = digsum([64][64]) = digsum([32][64][32]) = digsum([16][48][48][16]) = digsum(8[32][48][32]8) = digsum(4[20][40][40][20]4) = digsum(2[12][30][40][30][12]2) = digsum(17[21][35][35][21]71) (b=255) (hp=8)
digsum([256]) = digsum([128][128]) = digsum([64][128][64]) = digsum([32][96][96][32]) = digsum([16][64][96][64][16]) = digsum(8[40][80][80][40]8) = digsum(4[24][60][80][60][24]4) = digsum(2[14][42][70][70][42][14]2) = digsum(18[28][56][70][56][28]81) (b=511) (hp=9)

After this, I looked at sequences in which n(i) = n(i-1) + digitsum(n(i-1)). How long could digitsum(n(i)) be greater than or equal to digitsum(n(i-1))? In base 10, I found these sequences:

1 (digitsum=1) → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 (sum=7) (count=4) (base=10)
9 → 18 (sum=9) → 27 (s=9) → 36 (s=9) → 45 (s=9) → 54 (s=9) → 63 (s=9) → 72 (s=9) → 81 (s=9) → 90 (s=9) → 99 (s=18) → 117 (s=9) (c=11) (b=10)
801 (s=9) → 810 (s=9) → 819 (s=18) → 837 (s=18) → 855 (s=18) → 873 (s=18) → 891 (s=18) → 909 (s=18) → 927 (s=18) → 945 (s=18) → 963 (s=18) → 981 (s=18) → 999 (s=27) → 1026 (s=9) (c=13)

Base 2 does better:

1 → 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 101 (s=2) → 111 (s=3) → 1010 (s=2) (c=5) (b=2)
16 = 10000 (s=1) → 10001 (s=2) → 10011 (s=3) → 10110 (s=3) → 11001 (s=3) → 11100 (s=3) → 11111 (s=5) → 100100 (s=2) (c=7) (b=2)
962 = 1111000010 (s=5) → 1111000111 (s=7) → 1111001110 (s=7) → 1111010101 (s=7) → 1111011100 (s=7) → 1111100011 (s=7) → 1111101010 (s=7) → 1111110001 (s=7) → 1111111000 (s=7) → 1111111111 (s=10) → 10000001001 (s=3) (c=10) (b=2)
524047 = 1111111111100001111 (s=15) → 1111111111100011110 (s=15) → 1111111111100101101 (s=15) → 1111111111100111100 (s=15) → 1111111111101001011 (s=15) → 1111111111101011010 (s=15) → 1111111111101101001(s=15) → 1111111111101111000 (s=15) → 1111111111110000111 (s=15) → 1111111111110010110 (s=15) → 1111111111110100101 (s=15) → 1111111111110110100 (s=15) → 1111111111111000011 (s=15) → 1111111111111010010 (s=15) → 1111111111111100001 (s=15) → 1111111111111110000 (s=15) → 1111111111111111111 (s=19) → 10000000000000010010 (s=3) (c=17) (b=2)

The best sequence I found in base 3 is shorter than in base 10, but there are more sequences:

1 → 2 → 11 (s=2) → 20 (s=2) → 22 (s=4) → 110 (s=2) (c=5) (b=3)
31 = 1011 (s=3) → 1021 (s=4) → 1102 (s=4) → 1120 (s=4) → 1201 (s=4) → 1212 (s=6) → 2002 (s=4) (c=6) (b=3)
54 = 2000 (s=2) → 2002 (s=4) → 2020 (s=4) → 2101 (s=4) → 2112 (s=6) → 2202 (s=6) → 2222 (s=8) → 10021(s=4) (c=7) (b=3)
432 = 121000 (s=4) → 121011 (s=6) → 121101 (s=6) → 121121 (s=8) → 121220 (s=8) → 122012 (s=8) → 122111 (s=8) → 122210 (s=8) → 200002 (s=4) (c=8) (b=3)
648 = 220000 (s=4) → 220011 (s=6) → 220101 (s=6) → 220121 (s=8) → 220220 (s=8) → 221012 (s=8) → 221111 (s=8) → 221210 (s=8) → 222002 (s=8) → 222101 (s=8) → 222200 (s=8) → 222222 (s=12) → 1000102 (s=4) (c=12) (b=3)

And what about sequences in which digitsum(n(i)) is always greater than digitsum(n(i-1))? Base 10 is disappointing:

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 (sum=7) (count=4) (base=10)
50 (s=5) → 55 (s=10) → 65 (s=11) → 76 (s=13) → 89 (s=17) → 106 (s=7) (c=5) (b=10)

Some other bases do better:

2 = 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 101 (s=2) (c=2) (b=2)
4 = 100 (s=1) → 101 (s=2) → 111 (s=3) → 1010 (s=2) (c=3) (b=2)
240 = 11110000 (s=4) → 11110100 (s=5) → 11111001 (s=6) → 11111111 (s=8) → 100000111 (s=4) (c=4) (b=2)

1 → 2 → 11 (s=2) (c=2) (b=3)
19 = 201 (s=3) → 211 (s=4) → 222 (s=6) → 1012 (s=4) (c=3) (b=3)
58999 = 2222221011 (s=15) → 2222221201 (s=16) → 2222222022 (s=18) → 2222222222 (s=20) → 10000000201 (s=4) (c=4) (b=3)

1 → 2 → 10 (s=1) (c=2) (b=4)
4 = 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 13 (s=4) → 23 (s=5) → 100 (s=1) (c=4) (b=4)
977 = 33101 (s=8) → 33121 (s=10) → 33203 (s=11) → 33232 (s=13) → 33323 (s=14) → 100021 (s=4) (c=5) (b=4)

1 → 2 → 4 → 13 (s=4) (c=3) (b=5)
105 = 410 (s=5) → 420 (s=6) → 431 (s=8) → 444 (s=12) → 1021 (s=4) (c=4) (b=5)

1 → 2 → 4 → 12 (s=3) (c=3) (b=6)
13 = 21 (s=3) → 24 (s=6) → 34 (s=7) → 45 (s=9) → 102 (s=3) (c=4) (b=6)
396 = 1500 (s=6) → 1510 (s=7) → 1521 (s=9) → 1534 (s=13) → 1555 (s=16) → 2023 (s=7) (c=5) (b=6)

1 → 2 → 4 → 11 (s=2) (c=3) (b=7)
121 = 232 (s=7) → 242 (s=8) → 253 (s=10) → 266 (s=14) → 316 (s=10) (c=4) (b=7)
205 = 412 (s=7) → 422 (s=8) → 433 (s=10) → 446 (s=14) → 466 (s=16) → 521 (s=8) (c=5) (b=7)

1 → 2 → 4 → 10 (s=1) (c=3) (b=8)
8 = 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 13 (s=4) → 17 (s=8) → 27 (s=9) → 40 (s=4) (c=5) (b=8)
323 = 503 (s=8) → 513 (s=9) → 524 (s=11) → 537 (s=15) → 556 (s=16) → 576 (s=18) → 620 (s=8) (c=6) (b=8)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 17 (s=8) (c=4) (b=9)
6481 = 8801 (s=17) → 8820 (s=18) → 8840 (s=20) → 8862 (s=24) → 8888 (s=32) → 10034 (s=8) (c=5) (b=9)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 (s=7) (c=4) (b=10)
50 (s=5) → 55 (s=10) → 65 (s=11) → 76 (s=13) → 89 (s=17) → 106 (s=7) (c=5) (b=10)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 15 (s=6) (c=4) (b=11)
1013 = 841 (s=13) → 853 (s=16) → 868 (s=22) → 888 (s=24) → 8[10][10] (s=28) → 925 (s=16) (c=5) (b=11)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 14 (s=5) (c=4) (b=12)
25 = 21 (s=3) → 24 (s=6) → 2[10] (s=12) → 3[10] (s=13) → 4[11] (s=15) → 62 (s=8) (c=5) (b=12)
1191 = 833 (s=14) → 845 (s=17) → 85[10] (s=23) → 879 (s=24) → 899 (s=26) → 8[11][11] (s=30) → 925 (s=16) (c=6) (b=12)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 13 (s=4) (c=4) (b=13)
781 = 481 (s=13) → 491 (s=14) → 4[10]2 (s=16) → 4[11]5 (s=20) → 4[12][12] (s=28) → 521 (s=8) (c=5) (b=13)
19621 = 8[12]14 (s=25) → 8[12]33 (s=26) → 8[12]53 (s=28) → 8[12]75 (s=32) → 8[12]9[11] (s=40) → 8[12][12][12] (s=44) → 9034 (s=16) (c=6) (b=13)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 12 (s=3) (c=4) (b=14)
72 = 52 (s=7) → 59 (s=14) → 69 (s=15) → 7[10] (s=17) → 8[13] (s=21) → [10]6 (s=16) (c=5) (b=14)
1275 = 671 (s=14) → 681 (s=15) → 692 (s=17) → 6[10]5 (s=21) → 6[11][12] (s=29) → 6[13][13] (s=32) → 723 (s=12) (c=6) (b=14)
19026 = 6[13]10 (s=20) → 6[13]26 (s=27) → 6[13]45 (s=28) → 6[13]65 (s=30) → 6[13]87 (s=34) → 6[13][10][13] (s=42) → 6[13][13][13] (s=45) → 7032 (s=12) (c=7) (b=14)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 11 (s=2) (c=4) (b=15)
603 = 2[10]3 (s=15) → 2[11]3 (s=16) → 2[12]4 (s=18) → 2[13]7 (s=22) → 2[14][14] (s=30) → 31[14] (s=18) (c=5) (b=15)
1023 = 483 (s=15) → 493 (s=16) → 4[10]4 (s=18) → 4[11]7 (s=22) → 4[12][14] (s=30) → 4[14][14] (s=32) → 521 (s=8) (c=6) (b=15)
1891 = 861 (s=15) → 871 (s=16) → 882 (s=18) → 895 (s=22) → 8[10][12] (s=30) → 8[12][12] (s=32) → 8[14][14] (s=36) → 925 (s=16) (c=7) (b=15)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 10 (s=1) (c=4) (b=16)
16 = 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 13 (s=4) → 17 (s=8) → 1[15] (s=16) → 2[15] (s=17) → 40 (s=4) (c=6) (b=16)
1396 = 574 (s=16) → 584 (s=17) → 595 (s=19) → 5[10]8 (s=23) → 5[11][15] (s=31) → 5[13][14] (s=32) → 5[15][14] (s=34) → 620 (s=8) (c=7) (b=16)
2131 = 853 (s=16) → 863 (s=17) → 874 (s=19) → 887 (s=23) → 89[14] (s=31) → 8[11][13] (s=32) → 8[13][13] (s=34) → 8[15][15] (s=38) → 925 (s=16) (c=8) (b=16)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] (s=16) → 1[15] (s=16) (c=5) (b=17)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] (s=16) → 1[14] (s=15) (c=5) (b=18)
5330 = [16]82 (s=26) → [16]9[10] (s=35) → [16][11]9 (s=36) → [16][13]9 (s=38) → [16][15][11] (s=42) → [16][17][17] (s=50) → [17]2[13] (s=32) (c=6) (b=18)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] (s=16) → 1[13] (s=14) (c=5) (b=19)
116339 = [16][18]52 (s=41) → [16][18]75 (s=46) → [16][18]9[13] (s=56) → [16][18][12][12] (s=58) → [16][18][15][13] (s=62) → [16][18][18][18] (s=70) → [17]03[12] (s=32) (c=6) (b=19)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] (s=16) → 1[12] (s=13) (c=5) (b=20)
100 = 50 (s=5) → 55 (s=10) → 5[15] (s=20) → 6[15] (s=21) → 7[16] (s=23) → 8[19] (s=27) → [10]6 (s=16) (c=6) (b=20)
135665 = [16][19]35 (s=43) → [16][19]58 (s=48) → [16][19]7[16] (s=58) → [16][19][10][14] (s=59) → [16][19][13][13] (s=61) → [16][19][16][14] (s=65) → [16][19][19][19] (s=73) → [17]03[12] (s=32) (c=7) (b=20)

Spijit

by in Base Behavior, Mathematics, Ulam Spirals and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The only two digits found in all standard bases are 1 and 0. But they behave quite differently. Suppose you take the integers 1 to 100 and compare the number of 1s and 0s in the representation of each integer, n, in bases 2 to n-1. For example, 10 would look like this:

1010 in base 2
101 in base 3
22 in base 4
20 in base 5
14 in base 6
13 in base 7
12 in base 8
11 in base 9

So there are nine 1s and four 0s. If you check 1 to 100 using this all-base function, the count of 1s goes like this:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 8, 5, 9, 9, 11, 10, 15, 12, 14, 13, 15, 12, 17, 14, 20, 19, 20, 15, 23, 19, 22, 22, 25, 24, 31, 21, 25, 24, 24, 27, 33, 27, 31, 29, 34, 29, 36, 30, 34, 35, 34, 30, 40, 33, 36, 35, 38, 34, 42, 37, 43, 40, 41, 37, 48, 39, 42, 42, 44, 43, 48, 43, 47, 46, 51, 42, 53, 44, 48, 50, 51, 50, 55, 48, 59, 55, 55, 54, 64, 57, 57, 55, 60, 57, 68, 60, 64, 63, 64, 59, 68, 58, 61, 63.

And the count of 0s goes like this:

0, 1, 0, 2, 1, 2, 0, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 1, 2, 2, 7, 4, 8, 4, 7, 4, 3, 1, 8, 4, 4, 6, 8, 4, 7, 1, 10, 8, 7, 7, 12, 5, 6, 5, 10, 4, 8, 2, 6, 7, 4, 2, 12, 6, 9, 7, 8, 4, 11, 6, 10, 5, 4, 2, 12, 2, 3, 5, 14, 11, 13, 7, 10, 8, 11, 5, 17, 7, 8, 10, 10, 8, 10, 4, 13, 12, 10, 8, 16, 8, 7, 7, 12, 6, 14, 6, 8, 5, 4, 4, 16, 6, 10, 11, 15.

The bigger the numbers get, the bigger the discrepancies get. Sometimes the discrepancy is dramatic. For example, suppose you represented the prime 1014719 in bases 2 to 1014718. How 0s would there be? And how many 1s? There are exactly nine zeroes:

1014719 = 11110111101110111111 in base 2 = 1220112221012 in base 3 = 40B27B in base 12 = 1509CE in base 15 = 10[670] in base 1007.

But there are 507723 ones. The same procedure applied to the next integer, 1014720, yields 126 zeroes and 507713 ones. However, there is a way to see that 1s and 0s in the all-base representation are behaving in a similar way. To do this, imagine listing the individual digits of n in bases 2 to n-1 (or just base 2, if n <= 3). When the digits aren’t individual they look like this:

1 = 1 in base 2
2 = 10 in base 2
3 = 11 in base 2
4 = 100 in base 2; 11 in base 3
5 = 101 in base 2; 12 in base 3; 11 in base 4
6 = 110 in base 2; 20 in base 3; 12 in base 4; 11 in base 5
7 = 111 in base 2; 21 in base 3; 13 in base 4; 12 in base 5; 11 in base 6
8 = 1000 in base 2; 22 in base 3; 20 in base 4; 13 in base 5; 12 in base 6; 11 in base 7
9 = 1001 in base 2; 100 in base 3; 21 in base 4; 14 in base 5; 13 in base 6; 12 in base 7; 11 in base 8
10 = 1010 in base 2; 101 in base 3; 22 in base 4; 20 in base 5; 14 in base 6; 13 in base 7; 12 in base 8; 11 in base 9

So the list would look like this:

1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 0, 1, 4, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1

Suppose that these digits are compared against the squares of a counter-clockwise spiral on a rectangular grid. If the spiral digit is equal to 1, the square is filled in; if the spijit is not equal to 1, the square is left blank. The 1-spiral looks like this:
1spiral
Now try zero. If the spijit is equal to 0, the square is filled in; if not, the square is left blank. The 0-spiral looks like this:
0spiral
And here’s an animated gif of the n-spiral for n = 0..9:
animspiral

Talcum Power

by in Base Behavior, Mathematics, Powers, Prime numbers and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

If primes are like diamonds, powers of 2 are like talc. Primes don’t crumble under division, because they can’t be divided by any number but themselves and one. Powers of 2 crumble more than any other numbers. The contrast is particularly strong when the primes are Mersenne primes, or equal to a power of 2 minus 1:

3 = 4-1 = 2^2 – 1.
4, 2, 1.

7 = 8-1 = 2^3 – 1.
8, 4, 2, 1.

31 = 32-1 = 2^5 – 1.
32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.

127 = 2^7 – 1.
128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.

8191 = 2^13 – 1.
8192, 4096, 2048, 1024, 512, 256, 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.

131071 = 2^17 – 1.
131072, 65536, 32768, 16384, 8192, 4096, 2048, 1024, 512, 256, 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.

524287 = 2^19 – 1.
524288, 262144, 131072, 65536, 32768, 16384, 8192, 4096, 2048, 1024, 512, 256, 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.

2147483647 = 2^31 – 1.
2147483648, 1073741824, 536870912, 268435456, 134217728, 67108864, 33554432, 16777216, 8388608, 4194304, 2097152, 1048576, 524288, 262144, 131072, 65536, 32768, 16384, 8192, 4096, 2048, 1024, 512, 256, 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.

Are Mersenne primes infinite? If they are, then there will be just as many Mersenne primes as powers of 2, even though very few powers of 2 create a Mersenne prime. That’s one of the paradoxes of infinity: an infinite part is equal to an infinite whole.

But are they infinite? No-one knows, though some of the greatest mathematicians in history have tried to find a proof or disproof of the conjecture. A simpler question about powers of 2 is this: Does every integer appear as part of a power of 2? I can’t find one that doesn’t:

0 is in 1024 = 2^10.
1 is in 16 = 2^4.
2 is in 32 = 2^5.
3 is in 32 = 2^5.
4 = 2^2.
5 is in 256 = 2^8.
6 is in 16 = 2^4.
7 is in 32768 = 2^15.
8 = 2^3.
9 is in 4096 = 2^12.
10 is in 1024 = 2^10.
11 is in 1099511627776 = 2^40.
12 is in 128 = 2^7.
13 is in 131072 = 2^17.
14 is in 262144 = 2^18.
15 is in 2097152 = 2^21.
16 = 2^4.
17 is in 134217728 = 2^27.
18 is in 1073741824 = 2^30.
19 is in 8192 = 2^13.
20 is in 2048 = 2^11.

666 is in 182687704666362864775460604089535377456991567872 = 2^157.
1066 is in 43556142965880123323311949751266331066368 = 2^135.
1492 is in 356811923176489970264571492362373784095686656 = 2^148.
2014 is in 3705346855594118253554271520278013051304639509300498049262642688253220148477952 = 2^261.

I’ve tested much higher than that, but testing is no good: where’s a proof? I don’t have one, though I conjecture that all integers do appear as part or whole of a power of 2. Nor do I have a proof for another conjecture: that all integers appear infinitely often as part or whole of powers of 2. Or indeed, of powers of 3, 4, 5 or any other number except powers of 10.

I conjecture that this would apply in all bases too: In any base b all n appear infinitely often as part or whole of powers of any number except those equal to a power of b.

1 is in 11 = 2^2 in base 3.
2 is in 22 = 2^3 in base 3.
10 is in 1012 = 2^5 in base 3.
11 = 2^2 in base 3.
12 is in 121 = 2^4 in base 3.
20 is in 11202 = 2^7 in base 3.
21 is in 121 = 2^4 in base 3.
22 = 2^3 in base 3.
100 is in 100111 = 2^8 in base 3.
101 is in 1012 = 2^5 in base 3.
102 is in 2210212 = 2^11 in base 3.
110 is in 1101221 = 2^10 in base 3.
111 is in 100111 = 2^8 in base 3.
112 is in 11202 = 2^7 in base 3.
120 is in 11202 = 2^7 in base 3.
121 = 2^4 in base 3.
122 is in 1101221 = 2^10 in base 3.
200 is in 200222 = 2^9 in base 3.
201 is in 12121201 = 2^12 in base 3.
202 is in 11202 = 2^7 in base 3.

1 is in 13 = 2^3 in base 5.
2 is in 112 = 2^5 in base 5.
3 is in 13 = 2^3 in base 5.
4 = 2^2 in base 5.
10 is in 1003 = 2^7 in base 5.
11 is in 112 = 2^5 in base 5.
12 is in 112 = 2^5 in base 5.
13 = 2^3 in base 5.
14 is in 31143 = 2^11 in base 5.
20 is in 2011 = 2^8 in base 5.
21 is in 4044121 = 2^16 in base 5.
22 is in 224 = 2^6 in base 5.
23 is in 112341 = 2^12 in base 5.
24 is in 224 = 2^6 in base 5.
30 is in 13044 = 2^10 in base 5.
31 = 2^4 in base 5.
32 is in 230232 = 2^13 in base 5.
33 is in 2022033 = 2^15 in base 5.
34 is in 112341 = 2^12 in base 5.
40 is in 4022 = 2^9 in base 5.

1 is in 12 = 2^3 in base 6.
2 is in 12 = 2^3 in base 6.
3 is in 332 = 2^7 in base 6.
4 = 2^2 in base 6.
5 is in 52 = 2^5 in base 6.
10 is in 1104 = 2^8 in base 6.
11 is in 1104 = 2^8 in base 6.
12 = 2^3 in base 6.
13 is in 13252 = 2^11 in base 6.
14 is in 144 = 2^6 in base 6.
15 is in 101532 = 2^13 in base 6.
20 is in 203504 = 2^14 in base 6.
21 is in 2212 = 2^9 in base 6.
22 is in 2212 = 2^9 in base 6.
23 is in 1223224 = 2^16 in base 6.
24 = 2^4 in base 6.
25 is in 13252 = 2^11 in base 6.
30 is in 30544 = 2^12 in base 6.
31 is in 15123132 = 2^19 in base 6.
32 is in 332 = 2^7 in base 6.

1 is in 11 = 2^3 in base 7.
2 is in 22 = 2^4 in base 7.
3 is in 1331 = 2^9 in base 7.
4 = 2^2 in base 7.
5 is in 514 = 2^8 in base 7.
6 is in 2662 = 2^10 in base 7.
10 is in 1054064 = 2^17 in base 7.
11 = 2^3 in base 7.
12 is in 121 = 2^6 in base 7.
13 is in 1331 = 2^9 in base 7.
14 is in 514 = 2^8 in base 7.
15 is in 35415440431 = 2^30 in base 7.
16 is in 164351 = 2^15 in base 7.
20 is in 362032 = 2^16 in base 7.
21 is in 121 = 2^6 in base 7.
22 = 2^4 in base 7.
23 is in 4312352 = 2^19 in base 7.
24 is in 242 = 2^7 in base 7.
25 is in 11625034 = 2^20 in base 7.
26 is in 2662 = 2^10 in base 7.

1 is in 17 = 2^4 in base 9.
2 is in 152 = 2^7 in base 9.
3 is in 35 = 2^5 in base 9.
4 = 2^2 in base 9.
5 is in 35 = 2^5 in base 9.
6 is in 628 = 2^9 in base 9.
7 is in 17 = 2^4 in base 9.
8 = 2^3 in base 9.
10 is in 108807 = 2^16 in base 9.
11 is in 34511011 = 2^24 in base 9.
12 is in 12212 = 2^13 in base 9.
13 is in 1357 = 2^10 in base 9.
14 is in 314 = 2^8 in base 9.
15 is in 152 = 2^7 in base 9.
16 is in 878162 = 2^19 in base 9.
17 = 2^4 in base 9.
18 is in 218715 = 2^17 in base 9.
20 is in 70122022 = 2^25 in base 9.
21 is in 12212 = 2^13 in base 9.
22 is in 12212 = 2^13 in base 9.

Prime Climb Time

by in Base Behavior, Binary numbers, Digit-sums, Mathematics, Prime numbers and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The third prime is equal to the sum of the first and second primes: 2 + 3 = 5. After that, for obvious reasons, the prime-sum climbs much more rapidly than the primes themselves:

2, 3, 05, 07, 11, 13, 17, 19, 023, 029...
2, 5, 10, 17, 28, 41, 58, 77, 100, 129...

But what if you use digit-sum(p1..pn), i.e., the sum of the digits of the primes from the first to the nth? For example, the digit-sum(p1..p5) = 2 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 1+1 = 19, whereas the sum(p1..p5) = 2 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 11 = 28. Using the digit-sums of the primes, the comparison now looks like this:

2, 3, 05, 07, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29...
2, 5, 10, 17, 19, 23, 31, 41, 46, 57...

The sum climbs more slowly, but still too fast. So what about a different base? In base-2, the digit-sum(p1..p3) = (1+0) + (1+1) + (1+0+1) = 1 + 2 + 2 = 5. The comparison looks like this:

2, 3, 05, 07, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29...
1, 3, 05, 08, 11, 14, 16, 19, 23, 27...

For primes 3, 5, 11, 19, and 23, p = digit-sum(primes <= p) in base-2. But the cumulative digit-sum soon begins to climb too slowly:

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271...

1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19, 23, 27, 32, 35, 38, 42, 47, 51, 56, 61, 64, 68, 71, 76, 80, 84, 87, 091, 096, 101, 106, 110, 117, 120, 123, 127, 131, 136, 141, 145, 150, 155, 160, 165, 172, 175, 179, 184, 189, 196, 201, 206, 211, 218, 223, 230, 232, 236, 240, 245...

So what about base-3?

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59...
2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 20, 23, 28, 31, 34, 37, 42, 47, 52, 59, 64...

In base-3, for p = 2, 3 and 37, p = digit-sum(primes <= p), while for p = 23, 31, 47 and 59, p = digit-sum(primes < p), like this:

2 = 2.
3 = 2 + (1+0).
37 = 2 + (1+0) + (1+2) + (2+1) + (1+0+2) + (1+1+1) + (1+2+2) + (2+0+1) + (2+1+2) + (1+0+0+2) + (1+0+1+1) + (1+1+0+1) = 2 + 1 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 3 + 3 + 3.

23 = 2 + (1+0) + (1+2) + (2+1) + (1+0+2) + (1+1+1) + (1+2+2) + (2+0+1) = 2 + 1 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 5 + 3.
31 = 2 + (1+0) + (1+2) + (2+1) + (1+0+2) + (1+1+1) + (1+2+2) + (2+0+1) + (2+1+2) + (1+0+0+2) = 2 + 1 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 3.
47 = 2 + (1+0) + (1+2) + (2+1) + (1+0+2) + (1+1+1) + (1+2+2) + (2+0+1) + (2+1+2) + (1+0+0+2) + (1+0+1+1) + (1+1+0+1) + (1+1+1+2) + (1+1+2+1) = 2 + 1 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 5 + 5.
59 = 2 + (1+0) + (1+2) + (2+1) + (1+0+2) + (1+1+1) + (1+2+2) + (2+0+1) + (2+1+2) + (1+0+0+2) + (1+0+1+1) + (1+1+0+1) + (1+1+1+2) + (1+1+2+1) + (1+2+0+2) + (1+2+2+2) = 2 + 1 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 7.

This carries on for a long time. For these primes, p = digit-sum(primes < p):

23, 31, 47, 59, 695689, 698471, 883517, 992609, 992737, 993037, 1314239, 1324361, 1324571, 1326511, 1327289, 1766291, 3174029

And for these primes, p = digit-sum(primes <= p):

3, 37, 695663, 695881, 1308731, 1308757, 1313153, 1314301, 1326097, 1766227, 3204779, 14328191

Now try the cumulative digit-sum in base-4:

2, 3, 5, 07, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59...
2, 5, 7, 11, 16, 20, 22, 26, 31, 36, 43, 47, 52, 59, 67, 72, 80...

The sum of digits climbs too fast. Base-3 is the Goldilocks base, climbing neither too slowly, like base-2, nor too fast, like all bases greater than 3.

Miss This

by in Base Behavior, Mathematics, Narcissistic numbers and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

1,729,404 is seven digits long. If you drop one digit at a time, you can create seven more numbers from it, each six digits long. If you add these numbers, something special happens:

1,729,404 → 729404 (missing 1) + 129404 (missing 7) + 179404 (missing 2) + 172404 + 172904 + 172944 + 172940 = 1,729,404

So 1,729,404 is narcissistic, or equal to some manipulation of its own digits. Searching for numbers like this might seem like a big task, but you can cut the search-time considerably by noting that the final two digits determine whether a number is a suitable candidate for testing. For example, what if a seven-digit number ends in …38? Then the final digit of the missing-digit sum will equal (3 x 1 + 8 x 6) modulo 10 = (3 + 48) mod 10 = 51 mod 10 = 1. This means that you don’t need to check any seven-digit number ending in …38.

But what about seven-digit numbers ending in …57? Now the final digit of the sum will equal (5 x 1 + 7 x 6) modulo 10 = (5 + 42) mod 10 = 47 mod 10 = 7. So seven-digit numbers ending in …57 are possible missing-digit narcissistic sums. Then you can test numbers ending …157, …257, …357 and so on, to determine the last-but-one digit of the sum. Using this method, one quickly finds the only two seven-digit numbers of this form in base-10:

1,729,404 → 729404 + 129404 + 179404 + 172404 + 172904 + 172944 + 172940 = 1,729,404

1,800,000 → 800000 + 100000 + 180000 + 180000 + 180000 + 180000 + 180000 = 1,800,000

What about eight-digit numbers? Only those ending in these two digits need to be checked: …00, …23, …28, …41, …46, …64, …69, …82, …87. Here are the results:

• 13,758,846 → 3758846 + 1758846 + 1358846 + 1378846 + 1375846 + 1375846 + 1375886 + 1375884 = 13,758,846
• 13,800,000 → 3800000 + 1800000 + 1300000 + 1380000 + 1380000 + 1380000 + 1380000 + 1380000 = 13,800,000
• 14,358,846 → 4358846 + 1358846 + 1458846 + 1438846 + 1435846 + 1435846 + 1435886 + 1435884 = 14,358,846
• 14,400,000 → 4400000 + 1400000 + 1400000 + 1440000 + 1440000 + 1440000 + 1440000 + 1440000 = 14,400,000
• 15,000,000 → 5000000 + 1000000 + 1500000 + 1500000 + 1500000 + 1500000 + 1500000 + 1500000 = 15,000,000
• 28,758,846 → 8758846 + 2758846 + 2858846 + 2878846 + 2875846 + 2875846 + 2875886 + 2875884 = 28,758,846
• 28,800,000 → 8800000 + 2800000 + 2800000 + 2880000 + 2880000 + 2880000 + 2880000 + 2880000 = 28,800,000
• 29,358,846 → 9358846 + 2358846 + 2958846 + 2938846 + 2935846 + 2935846 + 2935886 + 2935884 = 29,358,846
• 29,400,000 → 9400000 + 2400000 + 2900000 + 2940000 + 2940000 + 2940000 + 2940000 + 2940000 = 29,400,000

But there are no nine-digit sumbers, or nine-digit numbers that supply missing-digit narcissistic sums. What about ten-digit sumbers? There are twenty-one:

1,107,488,889; 1,107,489,042; 1,111,088,889; 1,111,089,042; 3,277,800,000; 3,281,400,000; 4,388,888,889; 4,388,889,042; 4,392,488,889; 4,392,489,042; 4,500,000,000; 5,607,488,889; 5,607,489,042; 5,611,088,889; 5,611,089,042; 7,777,800,000; 7,781,400,000; 8,888,888,889; 8,888,889,042; 8,892,488,889; 8,892,489,042 (21 numbers)

Finally, the nine eleven-digit sumbers all take this form:

30,000,000,000 → 0000000000 + 3000000000 + 3000000000 + 3000000000 + 3000000000 + 3000000000 + 3000000000 + 3000000000 + 3000000000 + 3000000000 + 3000000000 = 30,000,000,000

So that’s forty-one narcissistic sumbers in base-10. Not all of them are listed in Sequence A131639 at the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, but I think I’ve got my program working right. Other bases show similar patterns. Here are some missing-digit narcissistic sumbers in base-5:

• 1,243 → 243 + 143 + 123 + 124 = 1,243 (b=5) = 198 (b=10)
• 1,324 → 324 + 124 + 134 + 132 = 1,324 (b=5) = 214 (b=10)
• 1,331 → 331 + 131 + 131 + 133 = 1,331 (b=5) = 216 (b=10)
• 1,412 → 412 + 112 + 142 + 141 = 1,412 (b=5) = 232 (b=10)

• 100,000 → 00000 + 10000 + 10000 + 10000 + 10000 + 10000 = 100,000 (b=5) = 3,125 (b=10)
• 200,000 → 00000 + 20000 + 20000 + 20000 + 20000 + 20000 = 200,000 (b=5) = 6,250 (b=10)
• 300,000 → 00000 + 30000 + 30000 + 30000 + 30000 + 30000 = 300,000 (b=5) = 9,375 (b=10)
• 400,000 → 00000 + 40000 + 40000 + 40000 + 40000 + 40000 = 400,000 (b=5) = 12,500 (b=10)

And here are some sumbers in base-16:

5,4CD,111,0EE,EF0,542 = 4CD1110EEEF0542 + 5CD1110EEEF0542 + 54D1110EEEF0542 + 54C1110EEEF0542 + 54CD110EEEF0542 + 54CD110EEEF0542 + 54CD110EEEF0542 + 54CD111EEEF0542 + 54CD1110EEF0542 + 54CD1110EEF0542 + 54CD1110EEF0542 + 54CD1110EEE0542 + 54CD1110EEEF542 + 54CD1110EEEF042 + 54CD1110EEEF052 + 54CD1110EEEF054 (b=16) = 6,110,559,033,837,421,890 (b=10)

6,5DD,E13,CEE,EF0,542 = 5DDE13CEEEF0542 + 6DDE13CEEEF0542 + 65DE13CEEEF0542 + 65DE13CEEEF0542 + 65DD13CEEEF0542 + 65DDE3CEEEF0542 + 65DDE1CEEEF0542 + 65DDE13EEEF0542 + 65DDE13CEEF0542 + 65DDE13CEEF0542 + 65DDE13CEEF0542 + 65DDE13CEEE0542 + 65DDE13CEEEF542 + 65DDE13CEEEF042 + 65DDE13CEEEF052 + 65DDE13CEEEF054 (b=16) = 7,340,270,619,506,705,730 (b=10)

10,000,000,000,000,000 → 0000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 + 1000000000000000 = 10,000,000,000,000,000 (b=16) = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (b=10)

F0,000,000,000,000,000 → 0000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 + F000000000000000 = F0,000,000,000,000,000 (b=16) = 276,701,161,105,643,274,240 (b=10)

Next I’d like to investigate sumbers created by missing two, three and more digits at a time. Here’s a taster:

1,043,101 → 43101 (missing 1 and 0) + 03101 (missing 1 and 4) + 04101 (missing 1 and 3) + 04301 + 04311 + 04310 + 13101 + 14101 + 14301 + 14311 + 14310 + 10101 + 10301 + 10311 + 10310 + 10401 + 10411 + 10410 + 10431 + 10430 + 10431 = 1,043,101 (b=5) = 18,526 (b=10)

Reverssum

by in Base Behavior, Digit-sums, Mathematics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Here’s a simple sequence. What’s the next number?

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 68, 100, ?

The rule I’m using is this: Reverse the number, then add the sum of the digits. So 1 doubles till it becomes 16. Then 16 becomes 61 + 6 + 1 = 68. Then 68 becomes 86 + 8 + 6 = 100. Then 100 becomes 001 + 1 = 2. And the sequence falls into a loop.

Reversing the number means that small numbers can get big and big numbers can get small, but the second tendency is stronger for the first few seeds:

• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 → 68 → 100 → 2
• 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 → 68 → 100 → 2
• 3 → 6 → 12 → 24 → 48 → 96 → 84 → 60 → 12
• 4 → 8 → 16 → 68 → 100 → 2 → 4
• 5 → 10 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 → 68 → 100 → 2
• 6 → 12 → 24 → 48 → 96 → 84 → 60 → 12
• 7 → 14 → 46 → 74 → 58 → 98 → 106 → 608 → 820 → 38 → 94 → 62 → 34 → 50 → 10 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 → 68 → 100 → 2
• 8 → 16 → 68 → 100 → 2 → 4 → 8
• 9 → 18 → 90 → 18
• 10 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 → 68 → 100 → 2

An 11-seed is a little more interesting:

11 → 13 → 35 → 61 → 23 → 37 → 83 → 49 → 107 → 709 → 923 → 343 → 353 → 364 → 476 → 691 → 212 → 217 → 722 → 238 → 845 → 565 → 581 → 199 → 1010 → 103 → 305 → 511 → 122 → 226 → 632 → 247 → 755 → 574 → 491 → 208 → 812 → 229 → 935 → 556 → 671 → 190 → 101 → 103 (11 leads to an 18-loop from 103 at step 26; total steps = 44)

Now try some higher bases:

• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 15 → 57 → 86 → 80 → 15 (base=11)
• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 14 → 46 → 72 → 34 → 4A → B6 → 84 → 58 → 96 → 80 → 14 (base=12)
• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 13 → 35 → 5B → C8 → A6 → 80 → 13 (base=13)
• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 12 → 24 → 48 → 92 → 36 → 6C → DA → C8 → A4 → 5A → B6 → 80 → 12 (base=14)
• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 11 → 13 → 35 → 5B → C6 → 80 → 11 (base=15)
• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 10 → 2 (base=16)

Does the 1-seed always create a short sequence? No, it gets pretty long in base-19 and base-20:

• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] → 1D → DF → [17]3 → 4[18] → 107 → 709 → 914 → 424 → 42E → E35 → 54[17] → [17]5C → C7D → D96 → 6B3 → 3C7 → 7D6 → 6EE → E[16]2 → 2[18]8 → 90B → B1A → A2E → E3[17] → [17]5A → A7B → B90 → AC→ DD → F1 → 2C → C[16] → [18]2 → 40 → 8 (base=19)
• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] → 1C → CE → F[18] → 108 → 80A → A16 → 627 → 731 → 13[18] → [18]43 → 363 → 36F → F77 → 794 → 4A7 → 7B5 → 5CA → ADC → CF5 → 5[17]4 → 4[18]B → B[19][17] → [18]1[18] → [18]3F → F5E → E79 → 994 → 4AB → BB9 → 9D2 → 2ED → DFB → B[17]C → C[19]B → C1E → E2[19] → [19]49 → 96B → B7F → F94 → 4B3 → 3C2 → 2D0 → D[17] → [19]3 → 51 → 1B → BD → EF → [17]3 → 4[17] → [18]5 → 71 → 1F → F[17] → [19]7 → 95 → 63 → 3F → [16]1 → 2D → D[17] (base=20)

Then it settles down again:

• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] → 1B → BD → EE → [16]0 → 1B (base=21)
• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] → 1A → AC → DA → BE → FE → [16]0 → 1A (base=22)
• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] → 19 → 9B → C6 → 77 → 7[21] → [22]C → EA → BF → [16]E → [16]0 → 19 (base=23)

Base-33 is also short:

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] → [32] → 1[31] → [32]0 → 1[31] (base=33)

And so is base-35:

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] → [32] → 1[29] → [29][31] → [33][19] → [21]F → [16][22] → [23][19] → [20][30] → [32]0 → 1[29] (base=35)

So what about base-34?

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] → [32] → 1[30] → [30][32] → 10[24] → [24]0[26] → [26]26 → 63[26] → [26]47 → 75[29] → [29]6E → E8A → A9C → CA7 → 7B7 → 7B[32] → [32]C[23] → [23]E[31] → [31][16][23] → [23][18][33] → [33][20][29] → [29][23]D → D[25][26] → [26][27]9 → 9[29][20] → [20][30][33] → [33][33]1 → 21[32] → [32]23 → 341 → 14B → B4[17] → [17]59 → 96E → E74 → 485 → 58[21] → [21]95 → 5A[22] → [22]B8 → 8C[29] → [29]D[23] → [23]F[26] → [26][17][19] → [19][19][20] → [20][21]9 → 9[23]2 → 2[24]9 → 9[25]3 → 3[26]C → C[27]A → A[28][27] → [27][30]7 → 7[32][23] → [24]01 → 11F → F1[18] → [18]2F → F3[19] → [19]4[18] → [18]5[26] → [26]6[33] → [33]8[23] → [23]A[29] → [29]C[17] → [17]E[19] → [19]F[33] → [33][17][18] → [18][19][33] → [33][21][20] → [20][24]5 → 5[26]1 → 1[27]3 → 3[27][32] → [32][28][31] → [31][31][21] → [22]0C → C1[22] → [22]2D → D3[25] → [25]4[20] → [20]66 → 67[18] → [18]83 → 39D → D9[28] → [28]A[29] → [29]C[27] → [27]E[29] → [29][16][29] → [29][19]1 → 1[21]A → A[21][33] → [33][23]6 → 6[25][27] → [27][26][30] → [30][29]8 → 8[31][29] → [29][33]8 → 91[31] → [31]2[16] → [16]4C → C5E → E69 → 979 → 980 → 8[26] → [27]8 → 9[28] → [29]C → E2 → 2[30] → [31]0 → 1[28] → [28][30] → [32][18] → [20]E → F[20] → [21][16] → [17][24] → [25][24] → [26]6 → 7[24] → [25]4 → 5[20] → [20][30] → [32]2 → 3[32] → [33]4 → 62 → 2E → E[18] → [19]C → D[16] → [17]8 → 98 → 8[26] (1 leads to a 30-loop from 8[26] / 298 in base-34 at step 111; total steps = 141)

An alternative rule is to add the digit-sum first and then reverse the result. Now 8 becomes 8 + 8 = 16 and 16 becomes 61. Then 61 becomes 61 + 6 + 1 = 68 and 68 becomes 86. Then 86 becomes 86 + 8 + 6 = 100 and 100 becomes 001 = 1:

• 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 61 → 86 → 1
• 2 → 4 → 8 → 61 → 86 → 1 → 2
• 3 → 6 → 21 → 42 → 84 → 69 → 48 → 6
• 4 → 8 → 61 → 86 → 1 → 2 → 4
• 5 → 1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 62 → 7 → 48 → 6 → 27 → 63 → 27
• 6 → 21 → 42 → 84 → 69 → 48 → 6
• 7 → 41 → 64 → 47 → 85 → 89 → 601 → 806 → 28 → 83 → 49 → 26 → 43 → 5 → 6 → 27 → 63 → 27
• 8 → 61 → 86 → 1 → 2 → 4 → 8
• 9 → 81 → 9
• 10 → 11 → 31 → 53 → 16 → 32 → 73 → 38 → 94 → 701 → 907 → 329 → 343 → 353 → 463 → 674 → 196 → 212 → 712 → 227 → 832 → 548 → 565 → 185 → 991 → 101 → 301 → 503 → 115 → 221 → 622 → 236 → 742 → 557 → 475 → 194→ 802 → 218 → 922 → 539 → 655 → 176 → 91 → 102 → 501 → 705 → 717 → 237 → 942 → 759 → 87 → 208 → 812 → 328 → 143 → 151 → 851 → 568 → 785 → 508 → 125 → 331 → 833 → 748 → 767 → 787 → 908 → 529 → 545 → 955 → 479 → 994 → 6102 → 1116 → 5211 → 225 → 432 → 144 → 351 → 63 → 27 → 63