Z-Fall

Do you want a haunting literary image? You’ll find one of the strangest and strongest in Borges’ “La Biblioteca de Babel” (1941), which is narrated by a librarian in an infinite library. The librarian anticipates the end of his life:

Muerto, no faltarán manos piadosas que me tiren por la baranda; mi sepultura será el aire insondable; mi cuerpo se hundirá largamente y se corromperá y disolverá en el viento engenerado por la caída, que es infinita. — “La Biblioteca de Babel

When I am dead, compassionate hands will throw me over the railing; my tomb will be the unfathomable air, my body will sink for ages, and will decay and dissolve in the wind engendered by my fall, which shall be infinite. — “The Library of Babel” (translation by Andrew Hurley)

The infinite fall is the haunting image. Falling is powerful; falling for ever is more powerful still. But it can’t happen in reality: soon or later a fall has to end. Objects crash to earth or splash into the ocean. Of course, you could call being in orbit a kind of infinite fall, but it doesn’t have the same power.

However, there’s more kinds of falling than one and I think the arithmophile Borges would have liked one of the other kinds a lot. Numbers can fall — you sum their digits, take the sum from the original number, and repeat. That is, n = n – digsum(n). Here are some examples:


10 → 9 → 0
100 → 99 → 81 → 72 → 63 → 54 → 45 → 36 → 27 → 18 → 9 → 0
1000 → 999 → 972 → 954 → 936 → 918 → 900 → 891 → 873 → 855 → 837 → 819 → 801 → 792 → 774 → 756 → 738 → 720 → 711 → 702 → 693 → 675 → 657 → 639 → 621 → 612 → 603 → 594 → 576 → 558 → 540 → 531 → 522 → 513 → 504 → 495 → 477 → 459 → 441 → 432 → 423 → 414 → 405 → 396 → 378 → 360 → 351 → 342 → 333 → 324 → 315 → 306 → 297 → 279 → 261 → 252 → 243 → 234 → 225 → 216 → 207 → 198 → 180 → 171 → 162 → 153 → 144 → 135 → 126 → 117 → 108 → 99 → 81 → 72 → 63 → 54 → 45 → 36 → 27 → 18 → 9 → 0

The details are different in other bases, like 2 or 16, but the destination is the same. The number falls to zero and the fall stops, because digsum(0) = 0:


102 → 1 → 0 (n=2)
100 → 11 → 1 → 0 (n=4)
1000 → 111 → 100 → 11 → 1 → 0 (n=8)
10000 → 1111 → 1011 → 1000 → 111 → 100 → 11 → 1 → 0 (n=16)
100000 → 11111 → 11010 → 10111 → 10011 → 10000 → 1111 → 1011 → 1000 → 111 → 100 → 11 → 1 → 0 (n=32)
1000000 → 111111 → 111001 → 110101 → 110001 → 101110 → 101010 → 100111 → 100011 → 100000 → 11111 → 11010 → 10111 → 10011 → 10000 → 1111 → 1011 → 1000 → 111 → 100 → 11 → 1 → 0 (n=64)


1013 → C → 0 (n=13)
100 → CC → B1 → A2 → 93 → 84 → 75 → 66 → 57 → 48 → 39 → 2A → 1B → C → 0 (n=169)
1000 → CCC → CA2 → C84 → C66 → C48 → C2A → C0C → BC1 → BA3 → B85 → B67 → B49 → B2B → B10 → B01 → AC2 → AA4 → A86 → A68 → A4A → A2C → A11 → A02 → 9C3 → 9A5 → 987 → 969 → 94B → 930 → 921 → 912 → 903 → 8C4 → 8A6 → 888 → 86A → 84C → 831 → 822 → 813 → 804 → 7C5 → 7A7 → 789 → 76B → 750 → 741 → 732 → 723 → 714 → 705 → 6C6 → 6A8 → 68A → 66C → 651 → 642 → 633 → 624 → 615 → 606 → 5C7 → 5A9 → 58B → 570 → 561 → 552 → 543 → 534 → 525 → 516 → 507 → 4C8 → 4AA → 48C → 471 → 462 → 453 → 444 → 435 → 426 → 417 → 408 → 3C9 → 3AB → 390 → 381 → 372 → 363 → 354 → 345 → 336 → 327 → 318 → 309 → 2CA → 2AC → 291 → 282 → 273 → 264 → 255 → 246 → 237 → 228 → 219 → 20A → 1CB → 1B0 → 1A1 → 192 → 183 → 174 → 165 → 156 → 147 → 138 → 129 → 11A → 10B → CC → B1 → A2 → 93 → 84 → 75 → 66 → 57 → 48 → 39 → 2A → 1B → C → 0 (n=2197)

But the fall to 0 made me think of another kind of number-fall. What if you count the 0s in a number, take that count away from the original number, and repeat? You could call this a z-fall (pronounced zee-fall). But unlike free-fall, z-fall doesn’t last long:


10 → 9
100 → 98
1000 → 997
10000 → 9996

And the number always comes to rest far above the ground, as it were. In a fall using digsum(n), the number descends to 0. In a fall using zerocount(n), the number never even reaches 1. At least, never in any base higher than 2. But in base-2, you get this:


10 → 1 (n=2)
100 → 10 → 1 (n=4)
1000 → 101 → 100 → 10 → 1 (n=8)
10000 → 1100 → 1010 → 1000 → 101 → 100 → 10 → 1 (n=16)
100000 → 11011 → 11010 → 11000 → 10101 → 10011 → 10001 → 1110 → 1101 → 1100 → 1010 → 1000 → 101 → 100 → 10 → 1 (n=32)
1000000 → 111010 → 111000 → 110101 → 110011 → 110001 → 101110 → 101100 → 101001 → 100110 → 100011 → 100000 → 11011 → 11010 → 11000 → 10101 → 10011 → 10001 → 1110 → 1101 → 1100 → 1010 → 1000 → 101 → 100 → 10 → 1 (n=64)

When I saw that, I had a wonderful vision of how even the biggest numbers in base 2 could z-fall all the way to 1. Almost all binary numbers contain 0, after all. So the z-falls would get longer and longer, paying tribute to la caída infinita, the infinite fall, of the librarian in Borges’ Library of Babel. Alas, binary numbers don’t behave like that. The highest number in base 2 that z-falls to 1 is this:


1010001 → 1001101 → 1001010 → 1000110 → 1000010 → 111101 → 111100 → 111010 → 111000 → 110101 → 110011 → 110001 → 101110 → 101100 → 101001 → 100110 → 100011 → 100000 → 11011 → 11010 → 11000 → 10101 → 10011 → 10001 → 1110 → 1101 → 1100 → 1010 → 1000 → 101 → 100 → 10 → 1 (n=81)

Above that, binary numbers land on what you might call a shelf:


1010010=82 → 1001110=78 → 1001011=75 → 1001000=72 → 1000011=67 → 111111=63 (n=82)

If binary numbers are an infinite tall mountain, 1 is at the foot of the mountain. 111111 = 63 is like a shelf a little way above the foot. But I conjecture that arbitrarily large binary numbers will z-fall to 63. For example, no matter how large the power of 2, I conjecture that it will z-fall to 63:


10 → 1 : 2 → 1 (count of steps=2)
100 ... → 1 : 4 ... → 1 (c=3)
1000 ... → 1 : 8 ... → 1 (c=5)
10000 ... → 1 : 16 ... → 1 (c=8)
100000 ... → 1 : 32 ... → 1 (c=16)
1000000 ... → 1 : 64 ... → 1 (c=27)
10000000 ... → 111111 : 128 ... → 63 (c=21)
100000000 ... → 111111 : 256 ... → 63 (c=60)
1000000000 ... → 111111 : 512 ... → 63 (c=130)
10000000000 ... → 111111 : 1024 ... → 63 (c=253)
100000000000 ... → 111111 : 2048 ... → 63 (c=473)
1000000000000 ... → 111111 : 4096 ... → 63 (c=869)
10000000000000 ... → 111111 : 8192 ... → 63 (c=1586)
100000000000000 ... → 111111 : 16384 ... → 63 (c=2899)
1000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 32768 ... → 63 (c=5327)
10000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 65536 ... → 63 (c=9851)
100000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 131072 ... → 63 (c=18340)
1000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 262144 ... → 63 (c=34331)
10000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 524288 ... → 63 (c=64559)
100000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 1048576 ... → 63 (c=121831)
1000000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 2097152 ... → 63 (c=230573)
10000000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 4194304 ... → 63 (c=437435)
100000000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 8388608 ... → 63 (c=831722)
1000000000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 16777216 ... → 63 (c=1584701)
10000000000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 33554432 ... → 63 (c=3025405)
100000000000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 67108864 ... → 63 (c=5787008)
1000000000000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 134217728 ... → 63 (c=11089958)
10000000000000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 268435456 ... → 63 (c=21290279)
100000000000000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 536870912 ... → 63 (c=40942711)
1000000000000000000000000000000 ... → 111111 : 1073741824 ... → 63 (c=78864154)

So the z-falls get longer and longer. But z-falling to 63 doesn’t have the power of z-falling to 1.

Period Panes

In The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers (1987), David Wells remarks that 142857 is “a number beloved of all recreational mathematicians”. He then explains that it’s “the decimal period of 1/7: 1/7 = 0·142857142857142…” and “the first decimal reciprocal to have maximum period, that is, the length of its period is only one less than the number itself.”

Why does this happen? Because when you’re calculating 1/n, the remainders can only be less than n. In the case of 1/7, you get remainders for all integers less than 7, i.e. there are 6 distinct remainders and 6 = 7-1:

(1*10) / 7 = 1 remainder 3, therefore 1/7 = 0·1...
(3*10) / 7 = 4 remainder 2, therefore 1/7 = 0·14...
(2*10) / 7 = 2 remainder 6, therefore 1/7 = 0·142...
(6*10) / 7 = 8 remainder 4, therefore 1/7 = 0·1428...
(4*10) / 7 = 5 remainder 5, therefore 1/7 = 0·14285...
(5*10) / 7 = 7 remainder 1, therefore 1/7 = 0·142857...
(1*10) / 7 = 1 remainder 3, therefore 1/7 = 0·1428571...
(3*10) / 7 = 4 remainder 2, therefore 1/7 = 0·14285714...
(2*10) / 7 = 2 remainder 6, therefore 1/7 = 0·142857142...

Mathematicians know that reciprocals with maximum period can only be prime reciprocals and with a little effort you can work out whether a prime will yield a maximum period in a particular base. For example, 1/7 has maximum period in bases 3, 5, 10, 12 and 17:

1/21 = 0·010212010212010212... in base 3
1/12 = 0·032412032412032412... in base 5
1/7 =  0·142857142857142857... in base 10
1/7 =  0·186A35186A35186A35... in base 12
1/7 =  0·274E9C274E9C274E9C... in base 17

To see where else 1/7 has maximum period, have a look at this graph:

Period pane for primes 3..251 and bases 2..39


I call it a “period pane”, because it’s a kind of window into the behavior of prime reciprocals. But what is it, exactly? It’s a graph where the x-axis represents primes from 3 upward and the y-axis represents bases from 2 upward. The red squares along the bottom aren’t part of the graph proper, but indicate primes that first occur after a power of two: 5 after 4=2^2; 11 after 8=2^3; 17 after 16=2^4; 37 after 32=2^5; 67 after 64=2^6; and so on.

If a prime reciprocal has maximum period in a particular base, the graph has a solid colored square. Accordingly, the purple square at the bottom left represents 1/7 in base 10. And as though to signal the approval of the goddess of mathematics, the graph contains a lower-case b-for-base, which I’ve marked in green. Here are more period panes in higher resolution (open the images in a new window to see them more clearly):

Period pane for primes 3..587 and bases 2..77


Period pane for primes 3..1303 and bases 2..152


An interesting pattern has begun to appear: note the empty lanes, free of reciprocals with maximum period, that stretch horizontally across the period panes. These lanes are empty because there are no prime reciprocals with maximum period in square bases, that is, bases like 4, 9, 25 and 36, where 4 = 2*2, 9 = 3*3, 25 = 5*5 and 36 = 6*6. I don’t know why square bases don’t have max-period prime reciprocals, but it’s probably obvious to anyone with more mathematical nous than me.

Period pane for primes 3..2939 and bases 2..302


Period pane for primes 3..6553 and bases 2..602


Like the Ulam spiral, other and more mysterious patterns appear in the period panes, hinting at the hidden regularities in the primes.

Bent Pent

This is a beautiful and interesting shape, reminiscent of a piece of jewellery:

Pentagons in a ring


I came across it in this tricky little word-puzzle:

Word puzzle using pentagon-ring


Here’s a printable version of the puzzle:

Printable puzzle


Let’s try placing some other regular polygons with s sides around regular polygons with s*2 sides:

Hexagonal ring of triangles


Octagonal ring of squares


Decagonal ring of pentagons


Dodecagonal ring of hexagons


Only regular pentagons fit perfectly, edge-to-edge, around a regular decagon. But all these polygonal-rings can be used to create interesting and beautiful fractals, as I hope to show in a future post.

Sprime Time

All fans of recreational math love palindromic numbers. It’s mandatory, man. 101, 727, 532235, 8810188, 1367755971795577631 — I love ’em! But where can you go after palindromes? Well, you can go to palindromes in a higher dimension. Numbers like 101, 727, 532235 and 8810188 are 1-d palindromes. That is, they’re palindromic in one dimension: backwards and forwards. But numbers like 181818189 and 646464640 aren’t palindromic in one dimension. They’re palindromic in two dimensions:


1 8 1
8 9 8
1 8 1

n=181818189


6 4 6
4 0 4
6 4 6

n=646464640



They’re 2-d palindromes or spiral numbers, that is, numbers that are symmetrical when written as a spiral. You start with the first digit on the top left, then spiral inwards to the center, like this for a 9-digit spiral (9 = 3×3):


And this for a 36-digit spiral (36 = 6×6):


Spiral numbers are easy to construct, because you can reflect and rotate the numbers in one triangular slice of the spiral to find all the others:


You could say that the seed for the spiral number above is 7591310652, because you can write that number in descending lines, left-to-right, as a triangle.

Here are some palindromic numbers with nine digits in base 3 — as you can see, some are both palindromic numbers and spiral numbers. That is, some are palindromic in both one and two dimensions:

1  0  1

0  1  0

1  0  1

n=101010101


1  0  1

0  2  0

1  0  1

n=101010102


1  1  1

1  0  1

1  1  1

n=111111110


1  1  1

1  1  1

1  1  1

n=111111111


2  0  2

0  1  0

2  0  2

n=202020201


2  0  2

0  2  0

2  0  2

n=202020202


2  2  2

2  1  2

2  2  2

n=222222221


2  2  2

2  2  2

2  2  2

n=222222222


But palindromic primes are even better than ordinary palindromes. Here are a few 1-d palindromic primes in base 10:

101
151
73037
7935397
97356765379
1091544334334451901
1367755971795577631
70707270707
39859395893
9212129
7436347
166000661
313
929


And after 1-d palindromic primes, you can go to 2-d palindromic primes. That is, to spiral primes or sprimes — primes that are symmetrical when written as a spiral:

3 6 3
6 7 6
3 6 3

n=363636367 (prime)
seed=367 (see definition above)


9 1 9
1 3 1
9 1 9

n=919191913 (prime)
seed=913


3 7 8 6 3 6 8 7 3
7 9 1 8 9 8 1 9 7
8 1 9 0 9 0 9 1 8
6 8 0 5 5 5 0 8 6
3 9 9 5 7 5 9 9 3
6 8 0 5 5 5 0 8 6
8 1 9 0 9 0 9 1 8
7 9 1 8 9 8 1 9 7
3 7 8 6 3 6 8 7 3

n=378636873786368737863687378636879189819189819189819189819090909090909090555555557 (prime)
seed=378639189909557 (l=15)


And why stop with spiral numbers — and sprimes — in two dimensions? 363636367 is a 2-sprime, being palindromic in two dimensions. But the digits of a number could be written to form a symmetrical cube in three, four, five and more dimensions. So I assume that there are 3-sprimes, 4-sprimes, 5-sprimes and more out there. Watch this space.

Back to Drac’ #2

Boring, dull, staid, stiff, everyday, ordinary, unimaginative, unexceptional, crashingly conventional — the only interesting thing about squares is the number of ways you can say how uninteresting they are. Unlike triangles, which vary endlessly and entertainingly, squares are square in every sense of the word.

And they don’t get any better if you tilt them, as here:

Sub-squares from gray square (with corner-numbers)


Nothing interesting can emerge from that set of squares. Or can it? As I showed in Curvous Energy, it can. Suppose that the gray square is dividing into the colored squares like a kind of amoeba. And suppose that the colored squares divide in their turn. So square divides into sub-squares and sub-squares divide into sub-sub-squares. And so on. And all the squares keep the same relative orientation.

What happens if the gray square divides into sub-squares sq2 and sq9? And then sq2 and sq9 each divide into their own sq2 and sq9? And so on. Something very unsquare-like happens:

Square-split stage #1


Stage #2


Square-split #3


Square-split #4


Square-split #5


Square-split #6


Square-split #7


Square-split #8


Square-split #9


Square-split #10


Square-split #11


Square-split #12


Square-split #13


Square-split #14


Square-split #15


Square-split #16


Square-split (animated)


The square-split creates a beautiful fractal known as a dragon-curve:

Dragon-curve


Dragon-curve (red)


And dragon-curves, at various angles and in various sizes, emerge from every other possible pair of sub-squares:

Lots of dragon-curves


And you get other fractals if you manipulate the sub-squares, so that the corners are rotated or reverse-rotated:

Rotation = 1,2 (sub-square #1 unchanged, in sub-square #2 corner 1 becomes corner 2, 2 → 3, 3 → 4, 4 → 1)


rot = 1,2 (animated)


rot = 1,2 (colored)


rot = 1,5 (in sub-square #2 corner 1 stays the same, 4 → 2, 3 stays the same, 2 → 4)


rot = 1,5 (anim)


rot = 4,7 (sub-square #2 flipped and rotated)


rot = 4,7 (anim)


rot = 4,7 (col)


rot = 4,8


rot = 4,8 (anim)


rot = 4,8 (col)


sub-squares = 2,8; rot = 5,6


sub-squares = 2,8; rot = 5,6 (anim)


sub-squares = 2,8; rot = 5,6 (col)


Another kind of dragon-curve — rot = 3,2


rot = 3,2 (anim)


rot = 3,2 (col)


sub-squares = 4,5; rot = 3,9


sub-squares = 4,5; rot = 3,9 (anim)


sub-squares = 4,5; rot = 3,9 (col)


Elsewhere other-accessible…

Curvous Energy — a first look at dragon-curves
Back to Drac’ — a second look at dragon-curves

Rollercoaster Rules

n += digsum(n). It’s one of my favorite integer sequences — a rollercoaster to infinity. It works like this: you take a number, sum its digits, add the sum to the original number, and repeat:


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 → 1007 → 1015 → 1022 → 1027 → 1037 → 1048 → 1061 → 1069 → 1085 → 1099 → 1118 → 1129 → 1142 → 1150 → 1157 → 1171 → 1181 → 1192 → 1205 → ...

I call it a rollercoaster to infinity because the digit-sum constantly rises and falls as n gets bigger and bigger. The most dramatic falls are when n gets one digit longer (except on the first occasion):


... → 8 (digit-sum=8) → 16 (digit-sum=7) → ...
... → 91 (ds=10) → 101 (ds=2) → ...
... → 983 (ds=20) → 1003 (ds=4) → ...
... → 9968 (ds=32) → 10000 (ds=1) → ...
... → 99973 (ds=37) → 100010 (ds=2) → ...
... → 999959 (ds=50) → 1000009 (ds=10) → ...
... → 9999953 (ds=53) → 10000006 (ds=7) → ...
... → 99999976 (ds=67) → 100000043 (ds=8) → ...
... → 999999980 (ds=71) → 1000000051 (ds=7) → ...
... → 9999999962 (ds=80) → 10000000042 (ds=7) → ...
... → 99999999968 (ds=95) → 100000000063 (ds=10) → ...
... → 999999999992 (ds=101) → 1000000000093 (ds=13) → ...

Look at 9968 → 10000, when the digit-sum goes from 32 to 1. That’s only the second time that digsum(n) = 1 in the sequence. Does it happen again? I don’t know.

And here’s something else I don’t know. Suppose you introduce a rule for the rollercoaster of n += digsum(n). You buy a ticket with a number on it: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5… Then you get on the rollercoaster powered by with that number. Now here’s the rule: Your ride on the rollercoaster ends when n += digsum(n) yields a rep-digit, i.e., a number whose digits are all the same. Here are the first few rides on the rollercoaster:


1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 → 23 → 28 → 38 → 49 → 62 → 70 → 77
2 → 4 → 8 → 16 → 23 → 28 → 38 → 49 → 62 → 70 → 77
3 → 6 → 12 → 15 → 21 → 24 → 30 → 33
4 → 8 → 16 → 23 → 28 → 38 → 49 → 62 → 70 → 77
5 → 10 → 11
6 → 12 → 15 → 21 → 24 → 30 → 33
7 → 14 → 19 → 29 → 40 → 44
8 → 16 → 23 → 28 → 38 → 49 → 62 → 70 → 77
9 → 18 → 27 → 36 → 45 → 54 → 63 → 72 → 81 → 90 → 99
10 → 11
11 → 13 → 17 → 25 → 32 → 37 → 47 → 58 → 71 → 79 → 95 → 109 → 119 → 130 → 134 → 142 → 149 → 163 → 173 → 184 → 197 → 214 → 221 → 226 → 236 → 247 → 260 → 268 → 284 → 298 → 317 → 328 → 341 → 349 → 365 → 379 → 398 → 418 → 431 → 439 → 455 → 469 → 488 → 508 → 521 → 529 → 545 → 559 → 578 → 598 → 620 → 628 → 644 → 658 → 677 → 697 → 719 → 736 → 752 → 766 → 785 → 805 → 818 → 835 → 851 → 865 → 884 → 904 → 917 → 934 → 950 → 964 → 983 → 1003 → 1007 → 1015 → 1022 → 1027 → 1037 → 1048 → 1061 → 1069 → 1085 → 1099 → 1118 → 1129 → 1142 → 1150 → 1157 → 1171 → 1181 → 1192 → 1205 → 1213 → 1220 → 1225 → 1235 → 1246 → 1259 → 1276 → 1292 → 1306 → 1316 → 1327 → 1340 → 1348 → 1364 → 1378 → 1397 → 1417 → 1430 → 1438 → 1454 → 1468 → 1487 → 1507 → 1520 → 1528 → 1544 → 1558 → 1577 → 1597 → 1619 → 1636 → 1652 → 1666 → 1685 → 1705 → 1718 → 1735 → 1751 → 1765 → 1784 → 1804 → 1817 → 1834 → 1850 → 1864 → 1883 → 1903 → 1916 → 1933 → 1949 → 1972 → 1991 → 2011 → 2015 → 2023 → 2030 → 2035 → 2045 → 2056 → 2069 → 2086 → 2102 → 2107 → 2117 → 2128 → 2141 → 2149 → 2165 → 2179 → 2198 → 2218 → 2231 → 2239 → 2255 → 2269 → 2288 → 2308 → 2321 → 2329 → 2345 → 2359 → 2378 → 2398 → 2420 → 2428 → 2444 → 2458 → 2477 → 2497 → 2519 → 2536 → 2552 → 2566 → 2585 → 2605 → 2618 → 2635 → 2651 → 2665 → 2684 → 2704 → 2717 → 2734 → 2750 → 2764 → 2783 → 2803 → 2816 → 2833 → 2849 → 2872 → 2891 → 2911 → 2924 → 2941 → 2957 → 2980 → 2999 → 3028 → 3041 → 3049 → 3065 → 3079 → 3098 → 3118 → 3131 → 3139 → 3155 → 3169 → 3188 → 3208 → 3221 → 3229 → 3245 → 3259 → 3278 → 3298 → 3320 → 3328 → 3344 → 3358 → 3377 → 3397 → 3419 → 3436 → 3452 → 3466 → 3485 → 3505 → 3518 → 3535 → 3551 → 3565 → 3584 → 3604 → 3617 → 3634 → 3650 → 3664 → 3683 → 3703 → 3716 → 3733 → 3749 → 3772 → 3791 → 3811 → 3824 → 3841 → 3857 → 3880 → 3899 → 3928 → 3950 → 3967 → 3992 → 4015 → 4025 → 4036 → 4049 → 4066 → 4082 → 4096 → 4115 → 4126 → 4139 → 4156 → 4172 → 4186 → 4205 → 4216 → 4229 → 4246 → 4262 → 4276 → 4295 → 4315 → 4328 → 4345 → 4361 → 4375 → 4394 → 4414 → 4427 → 4444

The 11-ticket is much better value than the tickets for 1..10. Bigger numbers behave like this:


1252 → 4444
1253 → 4444
1254 → 888888
1255 → 4444
1256 → 4444
1257 → 888888
1258 → 4444
1259 → 4444
1260 → 9999
1261 → 4444
1262 → 4444
1263 → 888888
1264 → 4444
1265 → 4444
1266 → 888888
1267 → 4444
1268 → 4444
1269 → 9999
1270 → 4444
1271 → 4444
1272 → 888888
1273 → 4444
1274 → 4444

Then all at once, a number-ticket turns golden and the rollercoaster-ride doesn’t end. So far, at least. I’ve tried, but I haven’t been able to find a rep-digit for 3515 and 3529 = 3515+digsum(3515) and so on:


3509 → 4444
3510 → 9999
3511 → 4444
3512 → 4444
3513 → 888888
3514 → 4444
3515 → ?
3516 → 888888
3517 → 4444
3518 → 4444
3519 → 9999
3520 → 4444
3521 → 4444
3522 → 888888
3523 → 4444
3524 → 4444
3525 → 888888
3526 → 4444
3527 → 4444
3528 → 9999
3529 → ?
3530 → 4444
3531 → 888888
3532 → 4444

Does 3515 ever yield a rep-digit for n += digsum(n)? It’s hard to believe it doesn’t, but I’ve no idea how to prove that it does. Except by simply riding the rollercoaster. And if the ride with the 3515-ticket never reaches a rep-digit, the rollercoaster will never let you know. How could it?

But here’s an example in base 23 of how a ticket for n+1 can give you a dramatically longer ride than a ticket for n and n+2:


MI → EEE (524 → 7742)
MJ → EEE (525 → 7742)
MK → 444 (526 → 2212)
ML → 444 (527 → 2212)
MM → MMMMMM (528 → 148035888)
100 → 444 (529 → 2212)
101 → 444 (530 → 2212)
102 → EEE (531 → 7742)
103 → 444 (532 → 2212)
104 → 444 (533 → 2212)
105 → EEE (534 → 7742)
106 → EEE (535 → 7742)
107 → 444 (536 → 2212)
108 → EEE (537 → 7742)
109 → 444 (538 → 2212)
10A → MMMMMM (539 → 148035888)
10B → EEE (540 → 7742)
10C → EEE (541 → 7742)
10D → EEE (542 → 7742)
10E → EEE (543 → 7742)
10F → 444 (544 → 2212)
10G → EEE (545 → 7742)
10H → EEE (546 → 7742)
10I → EEE (547 → 7742)
10J → 444 (548 → 2212)
10K → 444 (549 → 2212)
10L → MMMMMM (550 → 148035888)
10M → EEE (551 → 7742)
110 → EEE (552 → 7742)

Think Inc #2

In a pre-previous post called “Think Inc”, I looked at the fractals created by a point first jumping halfway towards the vertex of a square, then using a set of increments to decide which vertex to jump towards next. For example, if the inc-set was [0, 1, 3], the point would jump next towards the same vertex, v[i]+0, or the vertex immediately clockwise, v[i]+1, or the vertex immediately anti-clockwise, v[i]+3. And it would trace all possible routes using that inc-set. Then I added refinements to the process like giving the point extra jumping-targets half-way along each side.

Here are some more variations on the inc-set theme using two and three extra jumping-targets along each side of the square. First of all, try two extra jumping-targets along each side and a set of three increments:

inc = 0, 1, 6


inc = 0, 2, 6


inc = 0, 2, 8


inc = 0, 3, 6


inc = 0, 3, 9


inc = 0, 4, 8


inc = 0, 5, 6


inc = 0, 5, 7


inc = 1, 6, 11


inc = 2, 6, 10


inc = 3, 6, 9


Now try two extra jumping-targets along each side and a set of four increments:

inc = 0, 1, 6, 11


inc = 0, 2, 8, 10


inc = 0, 3, 7, 9


inc = 0, 4, 8, 10


inc = 0, 5, 6, 7


inc = 0, 5, 7, 8


inc = 1, 6, 7, 9


inc = 1, 4, 6, 11


inc = 1, 5, 7, 11


inc = 2, 4, 8, 10


inc = 3, 5, 7, 9


And finally, three extra jumping-targets along each side and a set of three increments:

inc = 0, 3, 13


inc = 0, 4, 8


inc = 0, 4, 12


inc = 0, 5, 11

inc = 0, 6, 9


inc = 0, 7, 9


Previously Pre-Posted

Think Inc — an earlier look at inc-set fractals

Sliv and Let Tri

Fluvius, planus et altus, in quo et agnus ambulet et elephas natet,” wrote Pope Gregory the Great (540-604). “There’s a river, wide and deep, where a lamb may wade and an elephant swim.” He was talking about the Word of God, but you can easily apply his words to mathematics. However, in the river of mathematics, the very shallow and the very deep are often a single step apart.

Here’s a good example. Take the integer 2. How many different ways can it be represented as an sum of separate integers? Easy. First of all it can be represented as itself: 2 = 2. Next, it can be represented as 2 = 1 + 1. And that’s it. There are two partitions of 2, as mathematicians say:

2 = 2 = 1+1 (p=2)


Now try 3, 4, 5, 6:

3 = 3 = 1+2 = 1+1+1 (p=3)
4 = 4 = 1+3 = 2+2 = 1+1+2 = 1+1+1+1 (p=5)
5 = 5 = 1+4 = 2+3 = 1+1+3 = 1+2+2 = 1+1+1+2 = 1+1+1+1+1 (p=7)
6 = 6 = 1+5 = 2+4 = 3+3 = 1+1+4 = 1+2+3 = 2+2+2 = 1+1+1+3 = 1+1+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1 (p=11)


So the partitions of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11. That’s interesting — the partition-counts are the prime numbers in sequence. So you might conjecture that p(7) = 13 and p(8) = 17. Alas, you’d be wrong. Here are the partitions of n = 1..10:

1 = 1 (p=1)
2 = 2 = 1+1 (p=2)
3 = 3 = 1+2 = 1+1+1 (p=3)
4 = 4 = 1+3 = 2+2 = 1+1+2 = 1+1+1+1 (p=5)
5 = 5 = 1+4 = 2+3 = 1+1+3 = 1+2+2 = 1+1+1+2 = 1+1+1+1+1 (p=7)
6 = 6 = 1+5 = 2+4 = 3+3 = 1+1+4 = 1+2+3 = 2+2+2 = 1+1+1+3 = 1+1+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1 (p=11)
7 = 7 = 1+6 = 2+5 = 3+4 = 1+1+5 = 1+2+4 = 1+3+3 = 2+2+3 = 1+1+1+4 = 1+1+2+3 = 1+2+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+3 = 1+1+1+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1 (p=15)
8 = 8 = 1+7 = 2+6 = 3+5 = 4+4 = 1+1+6 = 1+2+5 = 1+3+4 = 2+2+4 = 2+3+3 = 1+1+1+5 = 1+1+2+4 = 1+1+3+3 = 1+2+2+3 = 2+2+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+4 = 1+1+1+2+3 = 1+1+2+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+3 = 1+1+1+1+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 (p=22)
9 = 9 = 1+8 = 2+7 = 3+6 = 4+5 = 1+1+7 = 1+2+6 = 1+3+5 = 1+4+4 = 2+2+5 = 2+3+4 = 3+3+3 = 1+1+1+6 = 1+1+2+5 = 1+1+3+4 = 1+2+2+4 = 1+2+3+3 = 2+2+2+3 = 1+1+1+1+5 = 1+1+1+2+4 = 1+1+1+3+3 = 1+1+2+2+3 = 1+2+2+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+4 = 1+1+1+1+2+3 = 1+1+1+2+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+3 = 1+1+1+1+1+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 (p=30)
10 = 10 = 1+9 = 2+8 = 3+7 = 4+6 = 5+5 = 1+1+8 = 1+2+7 = 1+3+6 = 1+4+5 = 2+2+6 = 2+3+5 = 2+4+4 = 3+3+4 = 1+1+1+7 = 1+1+2+6 = 1+1+3+5 = 1+1+4+4 = 1+2+2+5 = 1+2+3+4 = 1+3+3+3 = 2+2+2+4 = 2+2+3+3 = 1+1+1+1+6 = 1+1+1+2+5 = 1+1+1+3+4 = 1+1+2+2+4 = 1+1+2+3+3 = 1+2+2+2+3 = 2+2+2+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+5 = 1+1+1+1+2+4 = 1+1+1+1+3+3 = 1+1+1+2+2+3 = 1+1+2+2+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+4 = 1+1+1+1+1+2+3 = 1+1+1+1+2+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+3 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 (p=42)


It’s very simple to understand what a partition is, but very difficult to say how many partitions, p(n), a particular number will have. Here’s a partition: 11 = 4 + 3 + 2 + 2. But what is p(11)? Is there a formula for the sequence of p(n)?

1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 15, 22, 30, 42, 56, 77, 101, 135, 176, 231, 297, 385, 490, 627, 792, 1002, 1255, 1575, 1958, 2436, 3010, 3718, 4565, 5604, 6842, 8349, 10143, 12310, 14883, 17977, 21637, 26015, 3118 5, 37338, 44583, 53174, 63261... (A000041 at the OEIS)

Yes, there is a formula, but it is very difficult to understand the Partition function that supplies it. So that part of the river of mathematics is very deep. But a step away the river of mathematics is very shallow. Here’s another question: If you multiply the numbers in a partition of n, what’s the largest possible product? Try using the partitions of 5:

4 = 1 * 4
6 = 2 * 3
3 = 1 * 1 * 3
4 = 1 * 2 * 2
2 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 2
1 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1

The largest product is 6 = 2 * 3. So the answer is easy for n = 5, but I assumed that as n got bigger, the largest product got more interesting, using a subtler and subtler mix of prime factors. I was wrong. You don’t have to struggle to find a formula for what you might call the maximum multiplicity of the partitions of n:

1 = 1 (n=1)
2 = 2 (n=2)
3 = 3 (n=3)
4 = 2 * 2 (n=4)
6 = 2 * 3 (n=5)
9 = 3 * 3 (n=6)
12 = 2 * 2 * 3 (n=7)
18 = 2 * 3 * 3 (n=8)
27 = 3 * 3 * 3 (n=9)
36 = 2 * 2 * 3 * 3 (n=10)
54 = 2 * 3 * 3 * 3 (n=11)
81 = 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 (n=12)
108 = 2 * 2 * 3 * 3 * 3 (n=13)
162 = 2 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 162(n=14)
243 = 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 (n=15)
324 = 2 * 2 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 (n=16)
486 = 2 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 (n=17)
729 = 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 (n=18)


It’s easy to see why the greatest prime factor is always 3. If you use 5 or 7 as a factor, the product can always be beaten by splitting the 5 into 2*3 or the 7 into 2*2*3:

15 = 3 * 5 < 18 = 3 * 2*3 (n=8)
14 = 2 * 7 < 24 = 2 * 2*2*3 (n=9)
35 = 5 * 7 < 72 = 2*3 * 2*2*3 (n=12)

And if you’re using 7 → 2*2*3 as factors, you can convert them to 1*3*3, then add the 1 to another factor to make a bigger product still:

14 = 2 * 7 < 24 = 2 * 2*2*3 < 27 = 3 * 3 * 3 (n=9)
35 = 5 * 7 < 72 = 2*3 * 2*2*3 < 81 = 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 (n=12)


Post-Performative Post-Scriptum

The title of this post is, of course, a paronomasia on core Beatles album Live and Let Die (1954). But what does it mean? Well, if you think of the partitions of n as slivers of n, then you sliv n to find its partitions:

9 = 9 = 1+8 = 2+7 = 3+6 = 4+5 = 1+1+7 = 1+2+6 = 1+3+5 = 1+4+4 = 2+2+5 = 2+3+4 = 3+3+3 = 1+1+1+6 = 1+1+2+5 = 1+1+3+4 = 1+2+2+4 = 1+2+3+3 = 2+2+2+3 = 1+1+1+1+5 = 1+1+1+2+4 = 1+1+1+3+3 = 1+1+2+2+3 = 1+2+2+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+4 = 1+1+1+1+2+3 = 1+1+1+2+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+3 = 1+1+1+1+1+2+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+2 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 (p=30)

And when you find the greatest product among those partitions, you let 3 or “tri” work its multiplicative magic. So you “Sliv and Let Tri”:

8 = 1 * 8
14 = 2 * 7
18 = 3 * 6
20 = 4 * 5
7 = 1 * 1 * 7
12 = 1 * 2 * 6
15 = 1 * 3 * 5
16 = 1 * 4 * 4
20 = 2 * 2 * 5
24 = 2 * 3 * 4
27 = 3 * 3 * 3 ←
6 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 6
10 = 1 * 1 * 2 * 5
12 = 1 * 1 * 3 * 4
16 = 1 * 2 * 2 * 4
12 = 1 * 2 * 3 * 3
24 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 3
5 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 5
8 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 2 * 4
9 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 3 * 3
12 = 1 * 1 * 2 * 2 * 3
16 = 1 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2
4 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 4
6 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 2 * 3
8 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 2 * 2 * 2
3 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 3
4 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 2 * 2
2 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 2
1 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1

Dime Time

Everyone knows the shapes for one and two dimensions, far fewer know the shapes for three and four dimensions, let alone five, six and seven. And what shapes are those? The shapes that answer this question:

• How many equidistant points are possible in 1d, 2d, 3d, 4d…?

In one dimension it’s obvious that the answer is 2. In other words, you can get only two equidistant points, (a,b), on a straight line. Point a must be as far from point b as point b is from point a. You can’t add a third point, c, such that (a,b,c) are equidistant. Not on a straight line in 1d. But suppose you bend the line into a circle, so that you’re working in two dimensions. It’s easy to place three equidistant points, (a,b,c), on a circle.

equidistant points on a circle

Three equidistant points around a circle forming the vertices of an equilateral triangle


And it’s also easy to see that the three points will form the vertices of an equilateral triangle. Now try adding a fourth point, d. If you place it in the center of the triangle, it will be equidistant from (a,b,c), but it will be nearer to (a,b,c) than they are to each other. So you can have only 2 equidistant points in 1d and 3 equidistant points in 2d.

But what are the co-ordinates of the equidistant points in 1d and 2d? Suppose (a,b) in 1d are given the co-ordinates (0) and (1), so that a is 1 unit distant from b. When you move to 2d and add point c, the co-ordinates for (a,b) become (0,0) and (1,0). They’re still 1 unit distant from each other. But what are the co-ordinates for c? Start by placing c exactly midway between a and b, so that it has the co-ordinates (0.5,0) and is 0.5 units distant from both a and b. Now, if you move c in the first dimension, it will become nearer either to a or b: (0.49,0) or (0.51,0) or (0.48,0) or (0.52,0)…

But if you move c in the second dimension, it will always be equidistant from a and b, because (a,b) stay in the first dimension, as it were, and c moves equally away from both into the second dimension. So where in 2d will c be 1 unit distant from both a and b just as a and b are 1 unit distant from each other in 1d? You can see the answer here:

equilateral_triangle heightHeight of an equilateral triangle


The co-ordinates for c are (0.5,√3/2) or (0.5,0.8660254…), because the second co-ordinate satisfies the Pythagorean equation 1^2 = 0.5^2 + (√3/2)^2 = 0.25 + 0.75. That is, to find the second co-ordinate of c for 2d, you find the answer to √(1 – 0.5^2) = √(1-0.25) = √0.75 = √(3/4) = √3/2 = 0.8660254….

But you can’t add a fourth point, d, in 2d such that (a,b,c,d) are equidistant. So let’s move to 3d for the points (a,b,c,d). Begin with point d in the center of the triangle formed by (a,b,c), where it will have the co-ordinates (0.5,√3/6,0) = (0.5,0.28867513…,0) and will be equidistant from (a,b,c). But d will be nearer to (a,b,c) than they are to each other. However, if you move d in the third dimension, it will be moving equally away from (a,b,c). So where in 3d will d be 1 unit from (a,b,c)? By analogy with 2d, the third co-ordinate for d will satisfy the generalized Pythagorean equation √(1 – 0.5^2 – (√3/6)^2). And √6/3 = √(1 – 0.5^2 – (√3/6)^2) = 0.81649658… So point d will have the co-ordinates (0.5,√3/6,√6/3) = (0.5, 0.288675135…, 0.816496581…).

And the four points (a,b,c,d) will be the vertices of a three-dimensional shape called the tetrahedron:

Rotating tetrahedron

Rotating tetrahedron


But you can’t add a fifth point, e, in 3d such that (a,b,c,d,e) are equidistant. So let’s move to 4d, the fourth dimension, for the points (a,b,c,d,e). Begin with point e in the center of the tetrahedron formed by (a,b,c,d), where it will have the co-ordinates (0.5,√3/6,√6/12,0) = (0.5,0.28867513…, 0.2041241…, 0) and will be equidistant from (a,b,c,d). But e will be nearer to (a,b,c,d) than they are to each other. However, if you move e in the fourth dimension, it will be moving equally away from (a,b,c,e). So where in 4d will e be 1 unit from (a,b,c,d)? By analogy with 2d and 3d, the co-ordinate for 4d will satisfy the equation √(1 – 0.5^2 – (√3/6)^2 – (√6/12)^2). And √10/4 = √(1 – 0.5^2 – (√3/6)^2 – (√6/12)^2) = 0.79056941… So point e will have the co-ordinates (0.5,√3/6,√6/3,√10/4) = (0.5, 0.288675135…, 0.816496581…, 0.79056941…).

And the five points (a,b,c,d,e) will be the vertices of a four-dimensional shape called variously the hyperpyramid, the 5-cell, the pentachoron, the 4-simplex, the pentatope, the pentahedroid and the tetrahedral pyramid. It’s impossible for 3d creatures like human beings (at present) to visualize the hyperpyramid, but we can see its 3d shadow, as it were. And here is the 3d shadow of a rotating hyperpyramid:

Rotating hyperpyramid or 5-cell

Rotating hyperpyramid


N.B. Wikipedia reveals the mathematically beautiful fact that the “simplest set of coordinates [for a hyperpyramid] is: (2,0,0,0), (0,2,0,0), (0,0,2,0), (0,0,0,2), (φ,φ,φ,φ), with edge length 2√2, where φ is the golden ratio.”

So that’s the hyperpyramid, with 5 points in 4d. But you can’t add a sixth point, f, in 4d such that (a,b,c,d,e,f) are equidistant. You have to move to 5d. And it should be clear by now that in any dimension nd, the maximum possible number of equidistant points, p, in that dimension will be p = n+1. And here are the co-ordinates for p in dimensions 1 to 10 (the co-ordinates are given in full for 1d to 4d, then for 5d to 10d only the co-ordinates of the additional point are given):

d1: (0), (1)
d2: (0,0), (1,0), (0.5,0.866025404)
d3: (0,0,0), (1,0,0), (0.5,0.866025404,0), (0.5,0.288675135,0.816496581)
d4: 0.5, 0.288675135, 0.204124145, 0.790569415
d5: 0.5, 0.288675135, 0.204124145, 0.158113883, 0.774596669
d6: 0.5, 0.288675135, 0.204124145, 0.158113883, 0.129099445, 0.763762616
d7: 0.5, 0.288675135, 0.204124145, 0.158113883, 0.129099445, 0.109108945, 0.755928946
d8: 0.5, 0.288675135, 0.204124145, 0.158113883, 0.129099445, 0.109108945, 0.0944911183, 0.75
d9: 0.5, 0.288675135, 0.204124145, 0.158113883, 0.129099445, 0.109108945, 0.0944911183, 0.0833333333, 0.745355992
d10: 0.5, 0.288675135, 0.204124145, 0.158113883, 0.129099445, 0.109108945, 0.0944911183, 0.0833333333, 0.0745355992, 0.741619849

In each dimension d, the final co-ordinate, cd+1, of the additional point satisfies the generalized Pythagorean equation cd+1 = √(1 – c1^2 – c2^2 – … cd^2).


Readers’ advisory: I am not a mathematician and the discussion above cannot be trusted to be free of errors, whether major or minor.

Think Inc

This is a T-square fractal:

T-square fractal


Or you could say it’s a T-square fractal with the scaffolding taken away, because there’s nothing to show how it was made. And how is a T-square fractal made? There are many ways. One of the simplest is to set a point jumping 1/2 of the way towards one or another of the four vertices of a square. If the point is banned from jumping towards the vertex two places clockwise (or counter-clockwise) of the vertex, v[i=1..4], it’s just jumped towards, you get a T-square fractal by recording each spot where the point lands.

You also get a T-square if the point is banned from jumping towards the vertex most distant from the vertex, v[i], it’s just jumped towards. The most distant vertex will always be the diagonally opposite vertex, or the vertex, v[i+2], two places clockwise of v[i]. So those two bans are functionally equivalent.

But what if you don’t talk about bans at all? You can also create a T-square fractal by giving the point three choices of increment, [0,1,3], after it jumps towards v[i]. That is, it can jump towards v[i+0], v[i+1] or v[i+3] (where 3+2 = 5 → 5-4 = 1; 3+3 = 6 → 2; 4+1 = 5 → 1; 4+2 = 6 → 2; 4+3 = 7 → 3). Vertex v[i+0] is the same vertex, v[i+1] is the vertex one place clockwise of v[i], and v[i+3] is the vertex two places clockwise of v[i].

So this method is functionally equivalent to the other two bans. But it’s easier to calculate, because you can take the current vertex, v[i], and immediately calculate-and-use the next vertex, without having to check whether the next vertex is forbidden. In other words, if you want speed, you just have to Think Inc!

Speed becomes important when you add a new jumping-target to each side of the square. Now the point has 8 possible targets to jump towards. If you impose several bans on the next jump, e.g the point can’t jump towards v[i+2], v[i+3], v[i+5], v[i+6] and v[i+7], you will have to check for five forbidden targets. But using the increment-set [0,1,4] you don’t have to check for anything. You just inc-and-go:

inc = 0, 1, 4


Here are more fractals created with the speedy inc-and-go method:

inc = 0, 2, 3


inc = 0, 2, 5


inc = 0, 3, 4


inc = 0, 3, 5


inc = 1, 4, 7


inc = 2, 4, 7


inc = 0, 1, 4, 7


inc = 0, 3, 4, 5


inc = 0, 3, 4, 7


inc = 0, 4, 5, 7


inc = 1, 2, 6, 7


With more incs, there are more possible paths for the jumping point and the fractals become more “solid”:

inc = 0, 1, 2, 4, 5


inc = 0, 1, 2, 6, 7


inc = 0, 1, 3, 5, 7


Now try applying inc-and-go to a pentagon:

inc = 0, 1, 2

(open in new window if blurred)


inc = 0, 2, 3


And add a jumping-target to each side of the pentagon:

inc = 0, 2, 5


inc = 0, 3, 6


inc = 0, 3, 7


inc = 1, 5, 9


inc = 2, 5, 8


inc = 5, 6, 9


And add two jumping-targets to each side of the pentagon:

inc = 0, 1, 7


inc = 0, 2, 12


inc = 0, 3, 11


inc = 0, 3, 12


inc = 0, 4, 11


inc = 0, 5, 9


inc = 0, 5, 10


inc = 2, 7, 13


inc = 2, 11, 13


inc = 3, 11, 13


After the pentagon comes the hexagon:

inc = 0, 1, 2


inc = 0, 1, 5


inc = 0, 3, 4


inc = 0, 3, 5


inc = 1, 3, 5


inc = 2, 3, 4


Add a jumping-target to each side of the hexagon:

inc = 0, 2, 5


inc = 0, 2, 9


inc = 0, 6, 11


inc = 0, 3, 6


inc = 0, 3, 8


inc = 0, 3, 9


inc = 0, 4, 7


inc = 0, 4, 8


inc = 0, 5, 6


inc = 0, 5, 8


inc = 1, 5, 9


inc = 1, 6, 10


inc = 1, 6, 11


inc = 2, 6, 8


inc = 2, 6, 10


inc = 3, 5, 7


inc = 3, 6, 9


inc = 6, 7, 11