Tag Archives: base 10

Can You Dij It? #1

by in Base Behavior, Binary numbers, Integer Sequences, Mathematics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The most powerful drug in the world is water. The second most powerful is language. But everyone’s on them, so nobody realizes how powerful they are. Well, you could stop drinking water. Then you’d soon realize its hold on the body and the brain.

But you can’t stop using language. Try it. No, the best way to realize the power of language is to learn a new one. Each is a feast with different flavours. New alphabets are good too. The Devanagari alphabet is one of the strongest, but if you want it in refined form, try the phonetic alphabet. It will transform the way you see the world. That’s because it will make you conscious of what you’re already subconsciously aware of.

But “language” is a bigger category that it used to be. Nowadays we have computer languages too. Learning one is another way of transforming the way you see the world. And like natural languages – French, Georgian, Tagalog – they come in different flavours. Pascal is not like Basic is not like C is not like Prolog. But all of them seem to put you in touch with some deeper aspect of reality. Computer languages are like mathemagick: a way to give commands to something immaterial and alter the world by the application of will.

That feeling is at its strongest when you program with machine code, the raw instructions used by the electronics of a computer. At its most fundamental, machine code is simply a series of binary numbers controlling how a computer processes other binary numbers. You can memorize and use those code-numbers, but it’s easier to use something like assembly language, which makes machine-code friendlier for human beings. But it still looks very odd to the uninitiated:

setupnum:
xor ax,ax
xor bp,bp
mov cx,20
clearloop:
mov [di+bp],ax
add bp,2
loop clearloop
ret

That’s almost at the binary bedrock. And machine code is fast. If a fast higher-level language like C feels like flying a Messerschmitt 262, which was a jet-plane, machine-code feels like flying a Messerschmitt 163, which was a rocket-plane. A very fast and very dangerous rocket-plane.

I’m not good at programming languages, least of all machine code, but they are fun to use, quite apart from the way they make you feel as though you’re in touch with a deeper aspect of reality. They do that because the world is mathematics at its most fundamental level, I think, and computer languages are a form of mathematics.

Their mathematical nature is disguised in a lot of what they’re used for, but I like to use them for recreational mathematics. Machine-code is useful when you need a lot of power and speed. For example, look at these digits:

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

They’re what the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS) calls “the almost natural numbers” (sequence A007376) and you generate them by writing the standard integers – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13… – and then separating each digit with a comma: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3… The commas give them some interesting twists. In a list of the standard integers, the 1st entry is 1, the 10th entry is 10, the 213rd entry is 213, the 987,009,381th entry is 987,009,381, and so on.

But that doesn’t work with the almost natural numbers. The 10th entry is 1, not 10, and the 11th entry is 0, not 11. But the 10th entry does begin the sequence (1, 0). I wondered whether that happened again. It does. The 63rd entry in the almost natural numbers begins the sequence (6, 3) – see the asterisks in the sequence above.

This happens again at the 3105th entry, which begins the sequence (3, 1, 0, 5). After that the gaps get bigger, which is where machine code comes in. An ordinary computer-language takes a long time to reach the 89,012,345,679th entry in the almost natural numbers. Machine code is much quicker, which is why I know that the 89,012,345,679th entry begins the sequence (8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9):

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 63, 3105, 43108, 77781, 367573, 13859021, 77911127, 911360799, 35924813703, 74075186297, 89012345679…

And an ordinary computer-language might give you the impression that base 9 doesn’t have numbers like these (apart from the trivial 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10…). But it does. 63 in base 10 is a low-hanging fruit: you could find it working by hand. In base 9, the fruit are much higher-hanging. But machine code plucks them with almost ridiculous ease:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 570086565, 655267526, 2615038272, 4581347024, 5307541865, 7273850617, 7801234568…

Block n Rule

by in Base Behavior, Binary numbers, Integer Sequences, Mathematics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

One of my favourite integer sequences uses the formula n(i) = n(i-1) + digsum(n(i-1)), where digsum(n) sums the digits of n. In base 10, it goes 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…

Another interesting sequence uses the formula n(i) = n(i-1) + digprod(n(i-1)), where digprod(n) multiplies the digits of n (excluding 0). In base 10, it goes like this:

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 22, 26, 38, 62, 74, 102, 104, 108, 116, 122, 126, 138, 162, 174, 202, 206, 218, 234, 258, 338, 410, 414, 430, 442, 474, 586, 826, 922, 958, 1318, 1342, 1366, 1474, 1586, 1826, 1922, 1958, 2318, 2366, 2582, 2742, 2854, 3174, 3258, 3498, 4362, 4506, 4626, 4914, 5058, 5258, 5658, 6858, 8778, 11914, 11950, 11995…

You can apply these formulae in other bases and it’s trivially obvious that the sequences rise most slowly in base 2, because you’re never summing or multiplying anything but the digit 1. However, there is a sequence for which base 2 is by far the best performer. It has the formula n(i) = n(i-1) + blockmult(n(i-1)), where blockmult(n) counts the lengths of distinct blocks of the same digit, including 0, then multiplies those lengths together. For example:

blockmult(3,b=2) = blockmult(11) = 2
blockmult(28,b=2) = blockmult(11100) = 3 * 2 = 6
blockmult(51,b=2) = blockmult(110011) = 2 * 2 * 2 = 8
blockmult(140,b=2) = blockmult(10001100) = 1 * 3 * 2 * 2 = 12
blockmult(202867,b=2) = blockmult(110001100001110011) = 2 * 3 * 2 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 2 = 576

The full sequence begins like this (numbers are represented in base 10, but the formula is being applied to their representations in binary):

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 19, 23, 26, 28, 34, 37, 39, 45, 47, 51, 59, 65, 70, 76, 84, 86, 88, 94, 98, 104, 110, 116, 122, 126, 132, 140, 152, 164, 168, 171, 173, 175, 179, 187, 193, 203, 211, 219, 227, 245, 249, 259, 271, 287, 302, 308, 316, 332, 340, 342, 344, 350, 354, 360, 366, 372, 378, 382, 388, 404, 412, 436, 444, 460, 484, 500, 510, 518, 530, 538, 546, 555, 561, 579, 595, 603, 611, 635, 651, 657, 663, 669, 675, 681…

In higher bases, it rises much more slowly. This is base 3:

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 42, 44, 48, 49, 51, 53, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 82, 85, 89, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 110, 114, 116, 120, 124, 127, 129, 131, 133, 137, 139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, 163…

And this is base 10:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90…

Note how, in bases 3 and 10, blockmult(n) often equals 1. In base 3, the sequence contains [141, 142, 143, 145]:

blockmult(141,b=3) = blockmult(12020) = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 = 1
blockmult(142,b=3) = blockmult(12021) = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 = 1
blockmult(143,b=3) = blockmult(12022) = 1 * 1 * 1 * 2 = 2

The formula also returns 1 much further along the sequence in base 3. For example, the 573809th number in the sequence, or n(573809), is 5775037 and blockmult(5775037) = blockmult(101212101212021) = 1^15 = 1. But in base 2, blockmult(n) = 1 is very rare. It happens three times at the beginning of the sequence:

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11…

After that, I haven’t found any more examples of blockmult(n) = 1, although blockmult(n) = 2 occurs regularly. For example,

blockmult(n(100723)) = blockmult(44739241) = blockmult(10101010101010101010101001) = 2
blockmult(n(100724)) = blockmult(44739243) = blockmult(10101010101010101010101011) = 2
blockmult(n(100725)) = blockmult(44739245) = blockmult(10101010101010101010101101) = 2

Does the sequence in base 2 return another example of blockmult(n) = 1? The odds seem against it. For any given number of digits in base 2, there is only one number for which blockmult(n) = 1. For example: 1, 10, 101, 1010, 10101, 101010, 1010101… As the sequence increases, the percentage of these numbers becomes smaller and smaller. But the sequence is infinite, so who knows what happens in the end? Perhaps blockmult(n) = 1 occurs infinitely often.

Narcischism

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

What have bits to do with splits? A lot. Suppose you take the digits 12345, split them in all possible ways, then sum the results, like this:

12345 → (1234 + 5) + (123 + 45) + (123 + 4 + 5) + (12 + 345) + (12 + 34 + 5) + (12 + 3 + 45) + (12 + 3 + 4 + 5) + (1 + 2345) + (1 + 234 + 5) + (1 + 23 + 45) + (1 + 23 + 4 + 5) + (1 + 2 + 345) + (1 + 2 + 34 + 5) + (1 + 2 + 3 + 45) + (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5) = 5175.

That’s a sum in base 10, but base 2 is at work below the surface, because each set of numbers is the answer to a series of binary questions: split or not? There are four possible places to split the digits 12345: after the 1, after the 2, after the 3 and after the 4. In (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5), the binary question “Split or not?” is answered SPLIT every time. In (1234 + 5) and (1 + 2345) it’s answered SPLIT only once.

So the splits are governed by a four-digit binary number ranging from 0001 to 1111. When the binary digit is 1, split; when the binary digit is 0, don’t split. In binary, 0001 to 1111 = 01 to 15 in base 10 = 2^4-1. That’s for a five-digit number, so the four-digit 1234 will have 2^3-1 = 7 sets of sums:

1234 → (123 + 4) + (12 + 34) + (12 + 3 + 4) + (1 + 234) + (1 + 23 + 4) + 110 (1 + 2 + 34) + (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) = 502.

And the six-digit number 123456 will have 2^5-1 = 31 sets of sums. By now, an exciting question may have occurred to some readers. Does any number in base 10 equal the sum of all possible numbers formed by splitting its digits?

The exciting answer is: 0. In other words: No. To see why not, examine a quick way of summing the split-bits of 123,456,789, with nine digits. The long way is to find all possible sets of split-bits. There are 2^8-1 = 255 of them. The quick way is to sum these equations:

1 * 128 + 10 * 64 + 100 * 32 + 1000 * 16 + 10000 * 8 + 100000 * 4 + 1000000 * 2 + 10000000 * 1
2 * 128 + 20 * 64 + 200 * 32 + 2000 * 16 + 20000 * 8 + 200000 * 4 + 2000000 * 2 + 20000000 * 1
3 * 128 + 30 * 64 + 300 * 32 + 3000 * 16 + 30000 * 8 + 300000 * 4 + 3000000 * 3
4 * 128 + 40 * 64 + 400 * 32 + 4000 * 16 + 40000 * 8 + 400000 * 7
5 * 128 + 50 * 64 + 500 * 32 + 5000 * 16 + 50000 * 15
6 * 128 + 60 * 64 + 600 * 32 + 6000 * 31
7 * 128 + 70 * 64 + 700 * 63
8 * 128 + 80 * 127
9 * 255

Sum = 52,322,283.

52,322,283 has eight digits. If you use the same formula for the nine-digit number 999,999,999, the sum is 265,621,761, which has nine digits but is far smaller than 999,999,999. If you adapt the formula for the twenty-digit 19,999,999,999,999,999,999 (starting with 1), the split-bit sum is 16,562,499,999,987,400,705. In base 10, as far as I can see, numbers increase too fast and digit-lengths too slowly for the binary governing the split-sums to keep up. That’s also true in base 9 and base 8:

Num = 18,888,888,888,888,888,888 (b=9)
Sum = 16,714,201,578,038,328,760

Num = 17,777,777,777,777,777,777 (b=8)
Sum = 17,070,707,070,625,000,001

So what about base 7? Do the numbers increase slowly enough and the digit-lengths fast enough for the binary to keep up? The answer is: 1. In base 7, this twenty-digit number is actually smaller than its split-bit sum:

Num = 16,666,666,666,666,666,666 (b=7)
Sum = 20,363,036,303,404,141,363

And if you search below that, you can find a number that is equal to its split-bit sum:

166512 → (1 + 6 + 6 + 5 + 1 + 2) + (16 + 6 + 5 + 1 + 2) + (1 + 66 + 5 + 1 + 2) + (166 + 5 + 1 + 2) + (1 + 6 + 65 + 1 + 2) + (16 + 65 + 1 + 2) + (1 + 665 + 1 + 2) + (1665 + 1 + 2) + (1 + 6 + 6 + 51 + 2) + (16 + 6 + 51 + 2) + (1 + 66 + 51 + 2) + (166 + 51 + 2) + (1 + 6 + 651 + 2) + (16 + 651 + 2) + (1 + 6651 + 2) + (16651 + 2) + (1 + 6 + 6 + 5 + 12) + (16 + 6 + 5 + 12) + (1 + 66 + 5 + 12) + (166 + 5 + 12) + (1 + 6 + 65 + 12) + (16 + 65 + 12) + (1 + 665 + 12) + (1665 + 12) + (1 + 6 + 6 + 512) + (16 + 6 + 512) + (1 + 66 + 512) + (166 + 512) + (1 + 6 + 6512) + (16 + 6512) + (1 + 66512) = 166512[b=7] = 33525[b=10].

So 33525 in base 7 is what might be called a narcischist: it can gaze into the split-bits of its own digits and see itself gazing back. In base 6, 1940 is a narcischist:

12552 → (1 + 2 + 5 + 5 + 2) + (12 + 5 + 5 + 2) + (1 + 25 + 5 + 2) + (125 + 5 + 2) + (1 + 2 + 55 + 2) + (12 + 55 + 2) + (1 + 255 + 2) + (1255 + 2) + (1 + 2 + 5+ 52) + (12 + 5 + 52) + (1 + 25 + 52) + (125 + 52) + (1 + 2 + 552) + (12 + 552) + (1 + 2552) = 12552[b=6] = 1940[b=10].

In base 5, 4074 is a narcischist:

112244 → (1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 4 + 4) + (11 + 2 + 2 + 4 + 4) + (1 + 12 + 2 + 4 + 4) + (112 + 2 + 4 + 4) + (1 + 1 + 22 + 4 + 4) + (11 + 22 + 4 + 4) + (1 + 122 + 4 + 4) + (1122 + 4 + 4) + (1 + 1 + 2 + 24 + 4) + (11 + 2 + 24 + 4) + (1 + 12 + 24 + 4) + (112 + 24 + 4) + (1 + 1 + 224 + 4) + (11 + 224 + 4) + (1 + 1224 + 4) + (11224 + 4) + (1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 44) + (11 + 2 + 2 + 44) + (1 + 12 + 2 + 44) + (112 + 2 + 44) + (1 + 1 + 22 + 44) + (11 + 22 + 44) + (1 + 122 + 44) + (1122 + 44) + (1 + 1 + 2 + 244) + (11 + 2 + 244) + (1 + 12 + 244) + (112 + 244) + (1 + 1 + 2244) + (11 + 2244) + (1 + 12244) = 112244[b=5] = 4074.

And in base 4, 27 is:

123 → (1 + 2 + 3) + (12 + 3) + (1 + 23) = 123[b=4] = 27.

And in base 3, 13 and 26 are:

111 → (1 + 1 + 1) + (11 + 1) + (1 + 11) = 111[b=3] = 13.

222 → (2 + 2 + 2) + (22 + 2) + (2 + 22) = 222[b=3] = 26.

There are many more narcischists in all these bases, even if you exclude numbers with zeroes in them, like these in base 4:

1022 → (1 + 0 + 2 + 2) + (10 + 2 + 2) + (1 + 02 + 2) + (102 + 2) + (1 + 0 + 22) + (10 + 22) + (1 + 022) = 1022[b=4] = 74.

1030 → (1 + 0 + 3 + 0) + (10 + 3 + 0) + (1 + 03 + 0) + (103 + 0) + (1 + 0 + 30) + (10 + 30) + (1 + 030) = 1030[b=4] = 76.

1120 → (1 + 1 + 2 + 0) + (11 + 2 + 0) + (1 + 12 + 0) + (112 + 0) + (1 + 1 + 20) + (11 + 20) + (1 + 120) = 1120[b=4] = 88.

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

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)

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

Block and Goal

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

123456789. How many ways are there to insert + and – between the numbers and create a formula for 100? With pen and ink it takes a long time to answer. With programming, the answer will flash up in an instant:

01. 1 + 2 + 3 - 4 + 5 + 6 + 78 + 9 = 100
02. 1 + 2 + 34 - 5 + 67 - 8 + 9 = 100
03. 1 + 23 - 4 + 5 + 6 + 78 - 9 = 100
04. 1 + 23 - 4 + 56 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 100
05. 12 - 3 - 4 + 5 - 6 + 7 + 89 = 100
06. 12 + 3 + 4 + 5 - 6 - 7 + 89 = 100
07. 12 + 3 - 4 + 5 + 67 + 8 + 9 = 100
08. 123 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 + 8 - 9 = 100
09. 123 + 4 - 5 + 67 - 89 = 100
10. 123 + 45 - 67 + 8 - 9 = 100
11. 123 - 45 - 67 + 89 = 100

And the beauty of programming is that you can easily generalize the problem to other bases. In base b, how many ways are there to insert + and – in the block [12345…b-1] to create a formula for b^2? When b = 10, the answer is 11. When b = 11, it’s 42. Here are two of those formulae in base-11:

123 - 45 + 6 + 7 - 8 + 9 + A = 100[b=11]
146 - 49 + 6 + 7 - 8 + 9 + 10 = 121

123 + 45 + 6 + 7 - 89 + A = 100[b=11]
146 + 49 + 6 + 7 - 97 + 10 = 121

When b = 12, it’s 51. Here are two of the formulae:

123 + 4 + 5 + 67 - 8 - 9A + B = 100[b=12]
171 + 4 + 5 + 79 - 8 - 118 + 11 = 144

123 + 4 + 56 + 7 - 89 - A + B = 100[b=12]
171 + 4 + 66 + 7 - 105 - 10 + 11 = 144

So that’s 11 formulae in base-10, 42 in base-11 and 51 in base-12. So what about base-13? The answer may be surprising: in base-13, there are no +/- formulae for 13^2 = 169 using the numbers 1 to 12. Nor are there any formulae in base-9 for 9^2 = 81 using the numbers 1 to 8. If you reverse the block, 987654321, the same thing happens. Base-10 has 15 formulae, base-11 has 54 and base-12 has 42. Here are some examples:

9 - 8 + 7 + 65 - 4 + 32 - 1 = 100
98 - 76 + 54 + 3 + 21 = 100

A9 + 87 - 65 + 4 - 3 - 21 = 100[b=11]
119 + 95 - 71 + 4 - 3 - 23 = 121

BA - 98 + 76 - 5 - 4 + 32 - 1 = 100[b=12]
142 - 116 + 90 - 5 - 4 + 38 - 1 = 144

But base-9 and base-13 again have no formulae. What’s going on? Is it a coincidence that 9 and 13 are each one more than a multiple of 4? No. Base-17 also has no formulae for b^2 = 13^2 = 169. Here is the list of formulae for bases-7 thru 17:

1, 2, 0, 11, 42, 51, 0, 292, 1344, 1571, 0 (block = 12345...)
3, 2, 0, 15, 54, 42, 0, 317, 1430, 1499, 0 (block = ...54321)

To understand what’s going on, consider any sequence of consecutive integers starting at 1. The number of odd integers in the sequence must always be greater than or equal to the number of even integers:

1, 2 (1 odd : 1 even)
1, 2, 3 (2 odds : 1 even)
1, 2, 3, 4 (2 : 2)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (3 : 2)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (3 : 3)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (4 : 3)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (4 : 4)

The odd numbers in a sequence determine the parity of the sum, that is, whether it is odd or even. For example:

1 + 2 = 3 (1 odd number)
1 + 2 + 3 = 6 (2 odd numbers)
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 (2 odd numbers)
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15 (3 odd numbers)
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 = 21 (3 odd numbers)
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 28 (4 odd numbers)

If there is an even number of odd numbers, the sum will be even; if there is an odd number, the sum will be odd. Consider sequences that end in a multiple of 4:

1, 2, 3, 4 → 2 odds : 2 evens
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 → 4 : 4
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 → 6 : 6

Such sequences always contain an even number of odd numbers. Now, consider these formulae in base-10:

1. 12 + 3 + 4 + 56 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 99
2. 123 - 45 - 67 + 89 = 100
3. 123 + 4 + 56 + 7 - 89 = 101

They can be re-written like this:

1. 1×10^1 + 2×10^0 + 3×10^0 + 4×10^0 + 5×10^1 + 6×10^0 + 7×10^0 + 8×10^0 + 9×10^0 = 99

2. 1×10^2 + 2×10^1 + 3×10^0 – 4×10^1 – 5×10^0 – 6×10^1 – 7×10^0 + 8×10^1 + 9×10^0 = 100

3. 1×10^2 + 2×10^1 + 3×10^0 + 4×10^0 + 5×10^1 + 6×10^1 + 7×10^0 – 8×10^1 – 9×10^0 = 101

In general, the base-10 formulae will take this form:

1×10^a +/- 2×10^b +/- 3×10^c +/– 4×10^d +/– 5×10^e +/– 6×10^f +/– 7×10^g +/– 8×10^h +/– 9×10^i = 100

It’s important to note that the exponent of 10, or the power to which it is raised, determines whether an odd number remains odd or becomes even. For example, 3×10^0 = 3×1 = 3, whereas 3×10^1 = 3×10 = 30 and 3×10^2 = 3×100 = 300. Therefore the number of odd numbers in a base-10 formula can vary and so can the parity of the sum. Now consider base-9. When you’re trying to find a block-formula for 9^2 = 81, the formula will have to take this form:

1×9^a +/- 2×9^b +/- 3×9^c +/- 4×9^d +/- 5×9^e +/- 6×9^f +/- 7×9^g +/- 8×9^h = 81

But no such formula exists for 81 (with standard exponents). It’s now possible to see why this is so. Unlike base-10, the odd numbers in the formula will remain odd what the power of 9. For example, 3×9^0 = 3×1 = 3, 3×9^1 = 3×9 = 27 and 3×9^2 = 3×81 = 243. Therefore base-9 formulae will always contain four odd numbers and will always produce an even number. Odd numbers in base-2 always end in 1, even numbers always end in 0. Therefore, to determine the parity of a sum of integers, convert the integers to base-2, discard all but the final digit of each integer, then sum the 1s. In a base-9 formula, these are the four possible results:

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4
1 + 1 + 1 - 1 = 2
1 + 1 - 1 - 1 = 0
1 - 1 - 1 - 1 = -2

The sum represents the parity of the answer, which is always even. Similar reasoning applies to base-13, base-17 and all other base-[b=4n+1].