Hopeless NumbersProve that powers of any fixed prime $p$ contain arbitrarily many consecutive equal digits.Numbers divisible by all of their digits: Why don't 4's show up in 6- or 7- digit numbers?Consecutive numbers whose digital sum is compositeProve that in every sequence of 79 consecutive positive numbers written in decimal system there is a number whose sum of the digits is divisible by 13How many $d$-digit numbers with all digits $4$ or $7$ are divisible by $512$?Why real numbers doesn't end with infinitely many 9s?Which sets of base 10 digits have the property that, for every $n$, there is a $n$-digit number made up of these digits that is divisible by $5^n$?$6$ digit numbers formed from the first six positive integers such that they are divisible by both $4$ and $3$.Pandigital number divisible by the most prime numbers and other propertiesFind all three digit numbers which are divisible by groups of its digits
Where does SFDX store details about scratch orgs?
Anagram holiday
Western buddy movie with a supernatural twist where a woman turns into an eagle at the end
Is Lorentz symmetry broken if SUSY is broken?
Why can't we play rap on piano?
Doing something right before you need it - expression for this?
What to put in ESTA if staying in US for a few days before going on to Canada
Today is the Center
What does it mean to describe someone as a butt steak?
I Accidentally Deleted a Stock Terminal Theme
Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?
Blender 2.8 I can't see vertices, edges or faces in edit mode
In Romance of the Three Kingdoms why do people still use bamboo sticks when papers are already invented?
Fully-Firstable Anagram Sets
How can I tell someone that I want to be his or her friend?
Is there a hemisphere-neutral way of specifying a season?
Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?
Python: return float 1.0 as int 1 but float 1.5 as float 1.5
Why do I get two different answers for this counting problem?
How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?
Theorems that impeded progress
How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?
Neighboring nodes in the network
Brothers & sisters
Hopeless Numbers
Prove that powers of any fixed prime $p$ contain arbitrarily many consecutive equal digits.Numbers divisible by all of their digits: Why don't 4's show up in 6- or 7- digit numbers?Consecutive numbers whose digital sum is compositeProve that in every sequence of 79 consecutive positive numbers written in decimal system there is a number whose sum of the digits is divisible by 13How many $d$-digit numbers with all digits $4$ or $7$ are divisible by $512$?Why real numbers doesn't end with infinitely many 9s?Which sets of base 10 digits have the property that, for every $n$, there is a $n$-digit number made up of these digits that is divisible by $5^n$?$6$ digit numbers formed from the first six positive integers such that they are divisible by both $4$ and $3$.Pandigital number divisible by the most prime numbers and other propertiesFind all three digit numbers which are divisible by groups of its digits
$begingroup$
Beatriz Viterbo has called a positive integer which is not divisible by any of the ($2^n$, where $n$ is the number of its digits) numbers that result by introducing a plus or minus sign to the left of each of its digits a hopeless number.
Are there infinitely many hopeless numbers? Are there arbitrarily long strings of consecutive numbers all of which are hopeless?
elementary-number-theory arithmetic divisibility decimal-expansion
edited Mar 29 at 9:28
Especially Lime
22.8k23059
asked Mar 29 at 2:43
Bernardo Recamán SantosBernardo Recamán Santos
400211
$endgroup$
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Beatriz Viterbo has called a positive integer which is not divisible by any of the ($2^n$, where $n$ is the number of its digits) numbers that result by introducing a plus or minus sign to the left of each of its digits a hopeless number.
Are there infinitely many hopeless numbers? Are there arbitrarily long strings of consecutive numbers all of which are hopeless?
elementary-number-theory arithmetic divisibility decimal-expansion
edited Mar 29 at 9:28
Especially Lime
22.8k23059
asked Mar 29 at 2:43
Bernardo Recamán SantosBernardo Recamán Santos
400211
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ask a check for understanding, $100$ would not be a hopeless number because $100$ divides $1+0+0 = 1$.
$endgroup$
– D.B.
Mar 29 at 2:47
1
$begingroup$
...because 1+0+0 divides 100.
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 29 at 2:48
1
$begingroup$
Aren't $85$, $850$, $8500$, etc. all hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 2:50
2
$begingroup$
Also, any odd number whose digit sum is even is hopeless, since minus signs don't change the parity of the digit sum.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 3:01
1
$begingroup$
@coffeemath: I misunderstood the definition. I missed that the condition demanding "signed sum" of the digits be a divisor. I though the individual digits should be divisors.
$endgroup$
– P Vanchinathan
Mar 29 at 8:33
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Beatriz Viterbo has called a positive integer which is not divisible by any of the ($2^n$, where $n$ is the number of its digits) numbers that result by introducing a plus or minus sign to the left of each of its digits a hopeless number.
Are there infinitely many hopeless numbers? Are there arbitrarily long strings of consecutive numbers all of which are hopeless?
elementary-number-theory arithmetic divisibility decimal-expansion
edited Mar 29 at 9:28
Especially Lime
22.8k23059
asked Mar 29 at 2:43
Bernardo Recamán SantosBernardo Recamán Santos
400211
$endgroup$
Beatriz Viterbo has called a positive integer which is not divisible by any of the ($2^n$, where $n$ is the number of its digits) numbers that result by introducing a plus or minus sign to the left of each of its digits a hopeless number.
Are there infinitely many hopeless numbers? Are there arbitrarily long strings of consecutive numbers all of which are hopeless?
elementary-number-theory arithmetic divisibility decimal-expansion
elementary-number-theory arithmetic divisibility decimal-expansion
edited Mar 29 at 9:28
Especially Lime
22.8k23059
asked Mar 29 at 2:43
Bernardo Recamán SantosBernardo Recamán Santos
400211
edited Mar 29 at 9:28
Especially Lime
22.8k23059
asked Mar 29 at 2:43
Bernardo Recamán SantosBernardo Recamán Santos
400211
edited Mar 29 at 9:28
Especially Lime
22.8k23059
edited Mar 29 at 9:28
Especially Lime
22.8k23059
edited Mar 29 at 9:28
Especially Lime
22.8k23059
22.8k23059
asked Mar 29 at 2:43
Bernardo Recamán SantosBernardo Recamán Santos
400211
asked Mar 29 at 2:43
Bernardo Recamán SantosBernardo Recamán Santos
400211
asked Mar 29 at 2:43
Bernardo Recamán SantosBernardo Recamán Santos
400211
400211
$begingroup$
Ask a check for understanding, $100$ would not be a hopeless number because $100$ divides $1+0+0 = 1$.
$endgroup$
– D.B.
Mar 29 at 2:47
1
$begingroup$
...because 1+0+0 divides 100.
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 29 at 2:48
1
$begingroup$
Aren't $85$, $850$, $8500$, etc. all hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 2:50
2
$begingroup$
Also, any odd number whose digit sum is even is hopeless, since minus signs don't change the parity of the digit sum.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 3:01
1
$begingroup$
@coffeemath: I misunderstood the definition. I missed that the condition demanding "signed sum" of the digits be a divisor. I though the individual digits should be divisors.
$endgroup$
– P Vanchinathan
Mar 29 at 8:33
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Ask a check for understanding, $100$ would not be a hopeless number because $100$ divides $1+0+0 = 1$.
$endgroup$
– D.B.
Mar 29 at 2:47
1
$begingroup$
...because 1+0+0 divides 100.
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 29 at 2:48
1
$begingroup$
Aren't $85$, $850$, $8500$, etc. all hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 2:50
2
$begingroup$
Also, any odd number whose digit sum is even is hopeless, since minus signs don't change the parity of the digit sum.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 3:01
1
$begingroup$
@coffeemath: I misunderstood the definition. I missed that the condition demanding "signed sum" of the digits be a divisor. I though the individual digits should be divisors.
$endgroup$
– P Vanchinathan
Mar 29 at 8:33
$begingroup$
Ask a check for understanding, $100$ would not be a hopeless number because $100$ divides $1+0+0 = 1$.
$endgroup$
– D.B.
Mar 29 at 2:47
$begingroup$
Ask a check for understanding, $100$ would not be a hopeless number because $100$ divides $1+0+0 = 1$.
$endgroup$
– D.B.
Mar 29 at 2:47
1
1
$begingroup$
...because 1+0+0 divides 100.
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 29 at 2:48
$begingroup$
...because 1+0+0 divides 100.
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 29 at 2:48
1
1
$begingroup$
Aren't $85$, $850$, $8500$, etc. all hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 2:50
$begingroup$
Aren't $85$, $850$, $8500$, etc. all hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 2:50
2
2
$begingroup$
Also, any odd number whose digit sum is even is hopeless, since minus signs don't change the parity of the digit sum.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 3:01
$begingroup$
Also, any odd number whose digit sum is even is hopeless, since minus signs don't change the parity of the digit sum.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 3:01
1
1
$begingroup$
@coffeemath: I misunderstood the definition. I missed that the condition demanding "signed sum" of the digits be a divisor. I though the individual digits should be divisors.
$endgroup$
– P Vanchinathan
Mar 29 at 8:33
$begingroup$
@coffeemath: I misunderstood the definition. I missed that the condition demanding "signed sum" of the digits be a divisor. I though the individual digits should be divisors.
$endgroup$
– P Vanchinathan
Mar 29 at 8:33
|
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There cannot be more than $17$ consecutive hopeless numbers. This is because among any ten consecutive numbers, one of them must end in a $0$, and for any number, there is a signed digit sum between $0$ and $9$. (The latter fact is easily proved by induction.) If $N=10n$ and $0le sle9$ is one of its signed digit sums, then $N+1$ is hopeful if $s=0$, while $N+s-1$ is hopeful if $1le sle9$. That is, one of the next $8$ numbers has $1$ among its signed digit sums.
It would be of interest (to me, at least) to know what is the largest possible length of a consecutive string of hopeless numbers (with one or more explicit examples), as well as the largest length that occurs infinitely often. (The sequence $850,851,8500,8501,85000,85001,ldots$ shows there are infinitely many consecutive pairs of hopeless numbers. Are there infinitely many consecutive triples?)
answered Mar 29 at 10:17
Barry CipraBarry Cipra
60.6k655129
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The nine integers from $88695$ to $88703$ are all hopeless; there is no longer string up to $10^8$. For any $n$ which is not a multiple of $6$, $5cdot10^n + 1$, $5cdot10^n + 2$, $5cdot10^n + 3$ are three consecutive hopeless numbers.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:08
1
$begingroup$
@FredH, cool. How did you find the nine-number stretch?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 17:43
1
$begingroup$
Brute force search.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:51
$begingroup$
@BarryCipra I wonder: are most numbers hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 30 at 15:23
2
$begingroup$
@BernardoRecamánSantos, good question. The first thing to do is compile a list of the first few dozen hopeless numbers and check in with the OEIS. Since odd numbers with an even digit sum are guaranteed to be hopeless, I would expect the density to be at least $1/4$. On the other hand, I would expect most numbers (with a large number of nonzero digits) that have an odd digit sum to include $1$ among their signed digit sums, so the "hopeful" numbers ought to have density at least $1/2$.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 30 at 19:42
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Notation : given $a$, we call any number formed by inserting $pm$ signs to the left of every number and evaluating, a "resultant" of $a$. Note that the set of resultants is symmetric i.e. $b$ is a resultant of $a$ if and only if $-b$ is (by switching signs) so we focus on just the positive resultants.
Note that if $a$ has an even number of digits, and all its digits are odd, then any resultant is even, and therefore clearly cannot divide $a$. Hence, $a$ is hopeless. One can see just from here that the number of hopeless numbers is infinite. E.g. $79,97,1531$ are all hopeless.
Furthermore, let $a$ be hopeless. Then, consider $10^ka$ for any $k geq 1$. Note that the resultants of $10^ka$ coincide with the resultants of $a$. The factors of $10^ka$ are the original factors of $a$ multiplied by powers of $2$ and $5$ less than $k$. Suppose all resultants of $a$ are coprime to $2$ and $5$. Then, certainly none of these can be a factor of $10^ka$ as well, rendering $10^ka$ hopeless.
For example, consider a non-trivial hopeless number $74$. Its resultants are $11$ and $3$ (we can leave the negative resultants out),none of which are divisors of $74$, and both of which are coprime to $2$ and $5$. Consequently, the numbers $74times 10^k$ gives an infinite family of hopeless numbers.
Other families of hopeless numbers can be formed by looking at large enough squares of primes, because the only divisors of such a number are the number, the prime and $1$. If somehow $1$ is not a resultant of such a number (remains to be seen when we can be sure of this) then the number is hopeless. Note that we can rephrase "$1$ is a resultant" as "there are two subsets of digits of $a$ whose difference is $1$".
To make the enough above precise, consider any number bigger than $37$. The resultants of its square cannot be more than $9$ times twice its number of digits, which if the number is $> 37$ ensures that no resultant can reach the number. Therefore, we may search in this domain. Hopeless numbers are easily found , like $41^2 = 1681,43^2 = 1849$ etc. (We cannot say if there are infinitely many of these, however).
answered Mar 29 at 3:53
астон вілла олоф мэллбэргастон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
40.2k33678
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In your example for $74$ don't you mean to say that it is not divisible by $11$ or $3$? [you wrote that neither $11$ nor $3$ is a multiple of $74.$]
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Mar 29 at 7:43
1
$begingroup$
I don't know how many times I have confused divisor and multiple. Its been an issue for sixteen years and counting!
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Mar 29 at 9:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг answers the first question (there are infinitely many hopeless numbers).
For your second question, the answer is "no", there are not arbitrarily long sets of consecutive hopeless numbers. To see this, we will show that any positive integer has a resultant in the set $1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,14,16,18$. It follows that any number divisible by $5040$ is not hopeless, and in particular there can never be $5040$ consecutive hopeless numbers.
To see this, insert signs $pm$ one by one. For each sign except the sign before the last non-zero digit, choose the sign to minimise the absolute value of the sum so far. This means each such sum will be in the interval $[-9,+9]$. For the sign before the last non-zero digit, make sure the sum is non-zero, but if both possibilities are non-zero, choose the smaller absolute value. The only way you can be forced to choose a number with absolute value greater than $9$ is if the final non-zero digit is the same absolute value as the sum so far, in which case the absolute value of the final sum will be twice this (so even and at most $18$). Finally, if the sum is negative go back and swap all signs.
answered Mar 29 at 9:26
Especially LimeEspecially Lime
22.8k23059
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3166675%2fhopeless-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There cannot be more than $17$ consecutive hopeless numbers. This is because among any ten consecutive numbers, one of them must end in a $0$, and for any number, there is a signed digit sum between $0$ and $9$. (The latter fact is easily proved by induction.) If $N=10n$ and $0le sle9$ is one of its signed digit sums, then $N+1$ is hopeful if $s=0$, while $N+s-1$ is hopeful if $1le sle9$. That is, one of the next $8$ numbers has $1$ among its signed digit sums.
It would be of interest (to me, at least) to know what is the largest possible length of a consecutive string of hopeless numbers (with one or more explicit examples), as well as the largest length that occurs infinitely often. (The sequence $850,851,8500,8501,85000,85001,ldots$ shows there are infinitely many consecutive pairs of hopeless numbers. Are there infinitely many consecutive triples?)
answered Mar 29 at 10:17
Barry CipraBarry Cipra
60.6k655129
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The nine integers from $88695$ to $88703$ are all hopeless; there is no longer string up to $10^8$. For any $n$ which is not a multiple of $6$, $5cdot10^n + 1$, $5cdot10^n + 2$, $5cdot10^n + 3$ are three consecutive hopeless numbers.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:08
1
$begingroup$
@FredH, cool. How did you find the nine-number stretch?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 17:43
1
$begingroup$
Brute force search.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:51
$begingroup$
@BarryCipra I wonder: are most numbers hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 30 at 15:23
2
$begingroup$
@BernardoRecamánSantos, good question. The first thing to do is compile a list of the first few dozen hopeless numbers and check in with the OEIS. Since odd numbers with an even digit sum are guaranteed to be hopeless, I would expect the density to be at least $1/4$. On the other hand, I would expect most numbers (with a large number of nonzero digits) that have an odd digit sum to include $1$ among their signed digit sums, so the "hopeful" numbers ought to have density at least $1/2$.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 30 at 19:42
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There cannot be more than $17$ consecutive hopeless numbers. This is because among any ten consecutive numbers, one of them must end in a $0$, and for any number, there is a signed digit sum between $0$ and $9$. (The latter fact is easily proved by induction.) If $N=10n$ and $0le sle9$ is one of its signed digit sums, then $N+1$ is hopeful if $s=0$, while $N+s-1$ is hopeful if $1le sle9$. That is, one of the next $8$ numbers has $1$ among its signed digit sums.
It would be of interest (to me, at least) to know what is the largest possible length of a consecutive string of hopeless numbers (with one or more explicit examples), as well as the largest length that occurs infinitely often. (The sequence $850,851,8500,8501,85000,85001,ldots$ shows there are infinitely many consecutive pairs of hopeless numbers. Are there infinitely many consecutive triples?)
answered Mar 29 at 10:17
Barry CipraBarry Cipra
60.6k655129
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The nine integers from $88695$ to $88703$ are all hopeless; there is no longer string up to $10^8$. For any $n$ which is not a multiple of $6$, $5cdot10^n + 1$, $5cdot10^n + 2$, $5cdot10^n + 3$ are three consecutive hopeless numbers.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:08
1
$begingroup$
@FredH, cool. How did you find the nine-number stretch?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 17:43
1
$begingroup$
Brute force search.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:51
$begingroup$
@BarryCipra I wonder: are most numbers hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 30 at 15:23
2
$begingroup$
@BernardoRecamánSantos, good question. The first thing to do is compile a list of the first few dozen hopeless numbers and check in with the OEIS. Since odd numbers with an even digit sum are guaranteed to be hopeless, I would expect the density to be at least $1/4$. On the other hand, I would expect most numbers (with a large number of nonzero digits) that have an odd digit sum to include $1$ among their signed digit sums, so the "hopeful" numbers ought to have density at least $1/2$.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 30 at 19:42
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There cannot be more than $17$ consecutive hopeless numbers. This is because among any ten consecutive numbers, one of them must end in a $0$, and for any number, there is a signed digit sum between $0$ and $9$. (The latter fact is easily proved by induction.) If $N=10n$ and $0le sle9$ is one of its signed digit sums, then $N+1$ is hopeful if $s=0$, while $N+s-1$ is hopeful if $1le sle9$. That is, one of the next $8$ numbers has $1$ among its signed digit sums.
It would be of interest (to me, at least) to know what is the largest possible length of a consecutive string of hopeless numbers (with one or more explicit examples), as well as the largest length that occurs infinitely often. (The sequence $850,851,8500,8501,85000,85001,ldots$ shows there are infinitely many consecutive pairs of hopeless numbers. Are there infinitely many consecutive triples?)
answered Mar 29 at 10:17
Barry CipraBarry Cipra
60.6k655129
$endgroup$
There cannot be more than $17$ consecutive hopeless numbers. This is because among any ten consecutive numbers, one of them must end in a $0$, and for any number, there is a signed digit sum between $0$ and $9$. (The latter fact is easily proved by induction.) If $N=10n$ and $0le sle9$ is one of its signed digit sums, then $N+1$ is hopeful if $s=0$, while $N+s-1$ is hopeful if $1le sle9$. That is, one of the next $8$ numbers has $1$ among its signed digit sums.
It would be of interest (to me, at least) to know what is the largest possible length of a consecutive string of hopeless numbers (with one or more explicit examples), as well as the largest length that occurs infinitely often. (The sequence $850,851,8500,8501,85000,85001,ldots$ shows there are infinitely many consecutive pairs of hopeless numbers. Are there infinitely many consecutive triples?)
answered Mar 29 at 10:17
Barry CipraBarry Cipra
60.6k655129
edited Mar 29 at 10:44
answered Mar 29 at 10:17
Barry CipraBarry Cipra
60.6k655129
answered Mar 29 at 10:17
Barry CipraBarry Cipra
60.6k655129
answered Mar 29 at 10:17
Barry CipraBarry Cipra
60.6k655129
60.6k655129
1
$begingroup$
The nine integers from $88695$ to $88703$ are all hopeless; there is no longer string up to $10^8$. For any $n$ which is not a multiple of $6$, $5cdot10^n + 1$, $5cdot10^n + 2$, $5cdot10^n + 3$ are three consecutive hopeless numbers.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:08
1
$begingroup$
@FredH, cool. How did you find the nine-number stretch?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 17:43
1
$begingroup$
Brute force search.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:51
$begingroup$
@BarryCipra I wonder: are most numbers hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 30 at 15:23
2
$begingroup$
@BernardoRecamánSantos, good question. The first thing to do is compile a list of the first few dozen hopeless numbers and check in with the OEIS. Since odd numbers with an even digit sum are guaranteed to be hopeless, I would expect the density to be at least $1/4$. On the other hand, I would expect most numbers (with a large number of nonzero digits) that have an odd digit sum to include $1$ among their signed digit sums, so the "hopeful" numbers ought to have density at least $1/2$.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 30 at 19:42
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
The nine integers from $88695$ to $88703$ are all hopeless; there is no longer string up to $10^8$. For any $n$ which is not a multiple of $6$, $5cdot10^n + 1$, $5cdot10^n + 2$, $5cdot10^n + 3$ are three consecutive hopeless numbers.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:08
1
$begingroup$
@FredH, cool. How did you find the nine-number stretch?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 17:43
1
$begingroup$
Brute force search.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:51
$begingroup$
@BarryCipra I wonder: are most numbers hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 30 at 15:23
2
$begingroup$
@BernardoRecamánSantos, good question. The first thing to do is compile a list of the first few dozen hopeless numbers and check in with the OEIS. Since odd numbers with an even digit sum are guaranteed to be hopeless, I would expect the density to be at least $1/4$. On the other hand, I would expect most numbers (with a large number of nonzero digits) that have an odd digit sum to include $1$ among their signed digit sums, so the "hopeful" numbers ought to have density at least $1/2$.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 30 at 19:42
1
1
$begingroup$
The nine integers from $88695$ to $88703$ are all hopeless; there is no longer string up to $10^8$. For any $n$ which is not a multiple of $6$, $5cdot10^n + 1$, $5cdot10^n + 2$, $5cdot10^n + 3$ are three consecutive hopeless numbers.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:08
$begingroup$
The nine integers from $88695$ to $88703$ are all hopeless; there is no longer string up to $10^8$. For any $n$ which is not a multiple of $6$, $5cdot10^n + 1$, $5cdot10^n + 2$, $5cdot10^n + 3$ are three consecutive hopeless numbers.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:08
1
1
$begingroup$
@FredH, cool. How did you find the nine-number stretch?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 17:43
$begingroup$
@FredH, cool. How did you find the nine-number stretch?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 17:43
1
1
$begingroup$
Brute force search.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:51
$begingroup$
Brute force search.
$endgroup$
– FredH
Mar 29 at 17:51
$begingroup$
@BarryCipra I wonder: are most numbers hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 30 at 15:23
$begingroup$
@BarryCipra I wonder: are most numbers hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 30 at 15:23
2
2
$begingroup$
@BernardoRecamánSantos, good question. The first thing to do is compile a list of the first few dozen hopeless numbers and check in with the OEIS. Since odd numbers with an even digit sum are guaranteed to be hopeless, I would expect the density to be at least $1/4$. On the other hand, I would expect most numbers (with a large number of nonzero digits) that have an odd digit sum to include $1$ among their signed digit sums, so the "hopeful" numbers ought to have density at least $1/2$.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 30 at 19:42
$begingroup$
@BernardoRecamánSantos, good question. The first thing to do is compile a list of the first few dozen hopeless numbers and check in with the OEIS. Since odd numbers with an even digit sum are guaranteed to be hopeless, I would expect the density to be at least $1/4$. On the other hand, I would expect most numbers (with a large number of nonzero digits) that have an odd digit sum to include $1$ among their signed digit sums, so the "hopeful" numbers ought to have density at least $1/2$.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 30 at 19:42
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Notation : given $a$, we call any number formed by inserting $pm$ signs to the left of every number and evaluating, a "resultant" of $a$. Note that the set of resultants is symmetric i.e. $b$ is a resultant of $a$ if and only if $-b$ is (by switching signs) so we focus on just the positive resultants.
Note that if $a$ has an even number of digits, and all its digits are odd, then any resultant is even, and therefore clearly cannot divide $a$. Hence, $a$ is hopeless. One can see just from here that the number of hopeless numbers is infinite. E.g. $79,97,1531$ are all hopeless.
Furthermore, let $a$ be hopeless. Then, consider $10^ka$ for any $k geq 1$. Note that the resultants of $10^ka$ coincide with the resultants of $a$. The factors of $10^ka$ are the original factors of $a$ multiplied by powers of $2$ and $5$ less than $k$. Suppose all resultants of $a$ are coprime to $2$ and $5$. Then, certainly none of these can be a factor of $10^ka$ as well, rendering $10^ka$ hopeless.
For example, consider a non-trivial hopeless number $74$. Its resultants are $11$ and $3$ (we can leave the negative resultants out),none of which are divisors of $74$, and both of which are coprime to $2$ and $5$. Consequently, the numbers $74times 10^k$ gives an infinite family of hopeless numbers.
Other families of hopeless numbers can be formed by looking at large enough squares of primes, because the only divisors of such a number are the number, the prime and $1$. If somehow $1$ is not a resultant of such a number (remains to be seen when we can be sure of this) then the number is hopeless. Note that we can rephrase "$1$ is a resultant" as "there are two subsets of digits of $a$ whose difference is $1$".
To make the enough above precise, consider any number bigger than $37$. The resultants of its square cannot be more than $9$ times twice its number of digits, which if the number is $> 37$ ensures that no resultant can reach the number. Therefore, we may search in this domain. Hopeless numbers are easily found , like $41^2 = 1681,43^2 = 1849$ etc. (We cannot say if there are infinitely many of these, however).
answered Mar 29 at 3:53
астон вілла олоф мэллбэргастон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
40.2k33678
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In your example for $74$ don't you mean to say that it is not divisible by $11$ or $3$? [you wrote that neither $11$ nor $3$ is a multiple of $74.$]
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Mar 29 at 7:43
1
$begingroup$
I don't know how many times I have confused divisor and multiple. Its been an issue for sixteen years and counting!
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Mar 29 at 9:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Notation : given $a$, we call any number formed by inserting $pm$ signs to the left of every number and evaluating, a "resultant" of $a$. Note that the set of resultants is symmetric i.e. $b$ is a resultant of $a$ if and only if $-b$ is (by switching signs) so we focus on just the positive resultants.
Note that if $a$ has an even number of digits, and all its digits are odd, then any resultant is even, and therefore clearly cannot divide $a$. Hence, $a$ is hopeless. One can see just from here that the number of hopeless numbers is infinite. E.g. $79,97,1531$ are all hopeless.
Furthermore, let $a$ be hopeless. Then, consider $10^ka$ for any $k geq 1$. Note that the resultants of $10^ka$ coincide with the resultants of $a$. The factors of $10^ka$ are the original factors of $a$ multiplied by powers of $2$ and $5$ less than $k$. Suppose all resultants of $a$ are coprime to $2$ and $5$. Then, certainly none of these can be a factor of $10^ka$ as well, rendering $10^ka$ hopeless.
For example, consider a non-trivial hopeless number $74$. Its resultants are $11$ and $3$ (we can leave the negative resultants out),none of which are divisors of $74$, and both of which are coprime to $2$ and $5$. Consequently, the numbers $74times 10^k$ gives an infinite family of hopeless numbers.
Other families of hopeless numbers can be formed by looking at large enough squares of primes, because the only divisors of such a number are the number, the prime and $1$. If somehow $1$ is not a resultant of such a number (remains to be seen when we can be sure of this) then the number is hopeless. Note that we can rephrase "$1$ is a resultant" as "there are two subsets of digits of $a$ whose difference is $1$".
To make the enough above precise, consider any number bigger than $37$. The resultants of its square cannot be more than $9$ times twice its number of digits, which if the number is $> 37$ ensures that no resultant can reach the number. Therefore, we may search in this domain. Hopeless numbers are easily found , like $41^2 = 1681,43^2 = 1849$ etc. (We cannot say if there are infinitely many of these, however).
answered Mar 29 at 3:53
астон вілла олоф мэллбэргастон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
40.2k33678
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In your example for $74$ don't you mean to say that it is not divisible by $11$ or $3$? [you wrote that neither $11$ nor $3$ is a multiple of $74.$]
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Mar 29 at 7:43
1
$begingroup$
I don't know how many times I have confused divisor and multiple. Its been an issue for sixteen years and counting!
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Mar 29 at 9:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Notation : given $a$, we call any number formed by inserting $pm$ signs to the left of every number and evaluating, a "resultant" of $a$. Note that the set of resultants is symmetric i.e. $b$ is a resultant of $a$ if and only if $-b$ is (by switching signs) so we focus on just the positive resultants.
Note that if $a$ has an even number of digits, and all its digits are odd, then any resultant is even, and therefore clearly cannot divide $a$. Hence, $a$ is hopeless. One can see just from here that the number of hopeless numbers is infinite. E.g. $79,97,1531$ are all hopeless.
Furthermore, let $a$ be hopeless. Then, consider $10^ka$ for any $k geq 1$. Note that the resultants of $10^ka$ coincide with the resultants of $a$. The factors of $10^ka$ are the original factors of $a$ multiplied by powers of $2$ and $5$ less than $k$. Suppose all resultants of $a$ are coprime to $2$ and $5$. Then, certainly none of these can be a factor of $10^ka$ as well, rendering $10^ka$ hopeless.
For example, consider a non-trivial hopeless number $74$. Its resultants are $11$ and $3$ (we can leave the negative resultants out),none of which are divisors of $74$, and both of which are coprime to $2$ and $5$. Consequently, the numbers $74times 10^k$ gives an infinite family of hopeless numbers.
Other families of hopeless numbers can be formed by looking at large enough squares of primes, because the only divisors of such a number are the number, the prime and $1$. If somehow $1$ is not a resultant of such a number (remains to be seen when we can be sure of this) then the number is hopeless. Note that we can rephrase "$1$ is a resultant" as "there are two subsets of digits of $a$ whose difference is $1$".
To make the enough above precise, consider any number bigger than $37$. The resultants of its square cannot be more than $9$ times twice its number of digits, which if the number is $> 37$ ensures that no resultant can reach the number. Therefore, we may search in this domain. Hopeless numbers are easily found , like $41^2 = 1681,43^2 = 1849$ etc. (We cannot say if there are infinitely many of these, however).
answered Mar 29 at 3:53
астон вілла олоф мэллбэргастон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
40.2k33678
$endgroup$
Notation : given $a$, we call any number formed by inserting $pm$ signs to the left of every number and evaluating, a "resultant" of $a$. Note that the set of resultants is symmetric i.e. $b$ is a resultant of $a$ if and only if $-b$ is (by switching signs) so we focus on just the positive resultants.
Note that if $a$ has an even number of digits, and all its digits are odd, then any resultant is even, and therefore clearly cannot divide $a$. Hence, $a$ is hopeless. One can see just from here that the number of hopeless numbers is infinite. E.g. $79,97,1531$ are all hopeless.
Furthermore, let $a$ be hopeless. Then, consider $10^ka$ for any $k geq 1$. Note that the resultants of $10^ka$ coincide with the resultants of $a$. The factors of $10^ka$ are the original factors of $a$ multiplied by powers of $2$ and $5$ less than $k$. Suppose all resultants of $a$ are coprime to $2$ and $5$. Then, certainly none of these can be a factor of $10^ka$ as well, rendering $10^ka$ hopeless.
For example, consider a non-trivial hopeless number $74$. Its resultants are $11$ and $3$ (we can leave the negative resultants out),none of which are divisors of $74$, and both of which are coprime to $2$ and $5$. Consequently, the numbers $74times 10^k$ gives an infinite family of hopeless numbers.
Other families of hopeless numbers can be formed by looking at large enough squares of primes, because the only divisors of such a number are the number, the prime and $1$. If somehow $1$ is not a resultant of such a number (remains to be seen when we can be sure of this) then the number is hopeless. Note that we can rephrase "$1$ is a resultant" as "there are two subsets of digits of $a$ whose difference is $1$".
To make the enough above precise, consider any number bigger than $37$. The resultants of its square cannot be more than $9$ times twice its number of digits, which if the number is $> 37$ ensures that no resultant can reach the number. Therefore, we may search in this domain. Hopeless numbers are easily found , like $41^2 = 1681,43^2 = 1849$ etc. (We cannot say if there are infinitely many of these, however).
answered Mar 29 at 3:53
астон вілла олоф мэллбэргастон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
40.2k33678
edited Mar 29 at 9:09
answered Mar 29 at 3:53
астон вілла олоф мэллбэргастон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
40.2k33678
answered Mar 29 at 3:53
астон вілла олоф мэллбэргастон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
40.2k33678
answered Mar 29 at 3:53
астон вілла олоф мэллбэргастон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
40.2k33678
40.2k33678
$begingroup$
In your example for $74$ don't you mean to say that it is not divisible by $11$ or $3$? [you wrote that neither $11$ nor $3$ is a multiple of $74.$]
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Mar 29 at 7:43
1
$begingroup$
I don't know how many times I have confused divisor and multiple. Its been an issue for sixteen years and counting!
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Mar 29 at 9:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In your example for $74$ don't you mean to say that it is not divisible by $11$ or $3$? [you wrote that neither $11$ nor $3$ is a multiple of $74.$]
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Mar 29 at 7:43
1
$begingroup$
I don't know how many times I have confused divisor and multiple. Its been an issue for sixteen years and counting!
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Mar 29 at 9:09
$begingroup$
In your example for $74$ don't you mean to say that it is not divisible by $11$ or $3$? [you wrote that neither $11$ nor $3$ is a multiple of $74.$]
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Mar 29 at 7:43
$begingroup$
In your example for $74$ don't you mean to say that it is not divisible by $11$ or $3$? [you wrote that neither $11$ nor $3$ is a multiple of $74.$]
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Mar 29 at 7:43
1
1
$begingroup$
I don't know how many times I have confused divisor and multiple. Its been an issue for sixteen years and counting!
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Mar 29 at 9:09
$begingroup$
I don't know how many times I have confused divisor and multiple. Its been an issue for sixteen years and counting!
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Mar 29 at 9:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг answers the first question (there are infinitely many hopeless numbers).
For your second question, the answer is "no", there are not arbitrarily long sets of consecutive hopeless numbers. To see this, we will show that any positive integer has a resultant in the set $1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,14,16,18$. It follows that any number divisible by $5040$ is not hopeless, and in particular there can never be $5040$ consecutive hopeless numbers.
To see this, insert signs $pm$ one by one. For each sign except the sign before the last non-zero digit, choose the sign to minimise the absolute value of the sum so far. This means each such sum will be in the interval $[-9,+9]$. For the sign before the last non-zero digit, make sure the sum is non-zero, but if both possibilities are non-zero, choose the smaller absolute value. The only way you can be forced to choose a number with absolute value greater than $9$ is if the final non-zero digit is the same absolute value as the sum so far, in which case the absolute value of the final sum will be twice this (so even and at most $18$). Finally, if the sum is negative go back and swap all signs.
answered Mar 29 at 9:26
Especially LimeEspecially Lime
22.8k23059
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг answers the first question (there are infinitely many hopeless numbers).
For your second question, the answer is "no", there are not arbitrarily long sets of consecutive hopeless numbers. To see this, we will show that any positive integer has a resultant in the set $1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,14,16,18$. It follows that any number divisible by $5040$ is not hopeless, and in particular there can never be $5040$ consecutive hopeless numbers.
To see this, insert signs $pm$ one by one. For each sign except the sign before the last non-zero digit, choose the sign to minimise the absolute value of the sum so far. This means each such sum will be in the interval $[-9,+9]$. For the sign before the last non-zero digit, make sure the sum is non-zero, but if both possibilities are non-zero, choose the smaller absolute value. The only way you can be forced to choose a number with absolute value greater than $9$ is if the final non-zero digit is the same absolute value as the sum so far, in which case the absolute value of the final sum will be twice this (so even and at most $18$). Finally, if the sum is negative go back and swap all signs.
answered Mar 29 at 9:26
Especially LimeEspecially Lime
22.8k23059
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг answers the first question (there are infinitely many hopeless numbers).
For your second question, the answer is "no", there are not arbitrarily long sets of consecutive hopeless numbers. To see this, we will show that any positive integer has a resultant in the set $1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,14,16,18$. It follows that any number divisible by $5040$ is not hopeless, and in particular there can never be $5040$ consecutive hopeless numbers.
To see this, insert signs $pm$ one by one. For each sign except the sign before the last non-zero digit, choose the sign to minimise the absolute value of the sum so far. This means each such sum will be in the interval $[-9,+9]$. For the sign before the last non-zero digit, make sure the sum is non-zero, but if both possibilities are non-zero, choose the smaller absolute value. The only way you can be forced to choose a number with absolute value greater than $9$ is if the final non-zero digit is the same absolute value as the sum so far, in which case the absolute value of the final sum will be twice this (so even and at most $18$). Finally, if the sum is negative go back and swap all signs.
answered Mar 29 at 9:26
Especially LimeEspecially Lime
22.8k23059
$endgroup$
астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг answers the first question (there are infinitely many hopeless numbers).
For your second question, the answer is "no", there are not arbitrarily long sets of consecutive hopeless numbers. To see this, we will show that any positive integer has a resultant in the set $1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,14,16,18$. It follows that any number divisible by $5040$ is not hopeless, and in particular there can never be $5040$ consecutive hopeless numbers.
To see this, insert signs $pm$ one by one. For each sign except the sign before the last non-zero digit, choose the sign to minimise the absolute value of the sum so far. This means each such sum will be in the interval $[-9,+9]$. For the sign before the last non-zero digit, make sure the sum is non-zero, but if both possibilities are non-zero, choose the smaller absolute value. The only way you can be forced to choose a number with absolute value greater than $9$ is if the final non-zero digit is the same absolute value as the sum so far, in which case the absolute value of the final sum will be twice this (so even and at most $18$). Finally, if the sum is negative go back and swap all signs.
answered Mar 29 at 9:26
Especially LimeEspecially Lime
22.8k23059
edited Mar 29 at 9:47
answered Mar 29 at 9:26
Especially LimeEspecially Lime
22.8k23059
answered Mar 29 at 9:26
Especially LimeEspecially Lime
22.8k23059
answered Mar 29 at 9:26
Especially LimeEspecially Lime
22.8k23059
22.8k23059
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3166675%2fhopeless-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Ask a check for understanding, $100$ would not be a hopeless number because $100$ divides $1+0+0 = 1$.
$endgroup$
– D.B.
Mar 29 at 2:47
1
$begingroup$
...because 1+0+0 divides 100.
$endgroup$
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Mar 29 at 2:48
1
$begingroup$
Aren't $85$, $850$, $8500$, etc. all hopeless?
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 2:50
2
$begingroup$
Also, any odd number whose digit sum is even is hopeless, since minus signs don't change the parity of the digit sum.
$endgroup$
– Barry Cipra
Mar 29 at 3:01
1
$begingroup$
@coffeemath: I misunderstood the definition. I missed that the condition demanding "signed sum" of the digits be a divisor. I though the individual digits should be divisors.
$endgroup$
– P Vanchinathan
Mar 29 at 8:33