tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post5445826868821116280..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: A PuzzleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-52239838049855579352012-03-17T21:27:04.991-04:002012-03-17T21:27:04.991-04:00"Knows no ... less than google can provide.&q..."Knows no ... less than google can provide."<br /><br />Thanks for the compliment!!Mirandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-47112891361054893702012-03-17T11:57:45.433-04:002012-03-17T11:57:45.433-04:00Right, it's the smallest integer > 1 whose ...Right, it's the smallest integer > 1 whose sum of digits in bases 2,3,5,7,11, and 13 is the same.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1611321923633872202012-03-16T20:15:09.904-04:002012-03-16T20:15:09.904-04:00Sum of digits is 21 in bases 2,3,5,7,11,13. (So it...Sum of digits is 21 in bases 2,3,5,7,11,13. (So it's Harshad in bases 3 and 11, for what that's worth.)<br /><br />Naive searching quickly finds that 1386, 1387, 485353 have digit-sums the same in bases 2,3,5,7,11. Is 2007986541 the smallest such number when base 13 is included too? (My slow-and-dirty searching program says there are none below 20,000,000. I was too impatient to let it run >100x longer.)ghttp://www.mccaughan.org.uk/g/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-70440713550742229122012-03-16T19:36:28.400-04:002012-03-16T19:36:28.400-04:00Miranda's a real googlin' fool! Knows no ...Miranda's a real googlin' fool! Knows no more or less than google can provide.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-4281510144286664762012-03-16T19:03:39.776-04:002012-03-16T19:03:39.776-04:00Hint: try the sum of digits in some prime bases.Hint: try the sum of digits in some prime bases.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-42384721687955299222012-03-16T17:21:08.667-04:002012-03-16T17:21:08.667-04:00It is NOT divisible by the sum of its digits! The...It is NOT divisible by the sum of its digits! The sum of its digits is 42 and its prime factorization is 3 x 11 x 60848077. I don't see what is special about it yet.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10140920751826036814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-34728271536261152832012-03-16T01:21:27.991-04:002012-03-16T01:21:27.991-04:00It's a Harshad number. These numbers give a pe...It's a Harshad number. These numbers give a person joy.Mirandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-3087863379959616202012-03-15T21:58:37.443-04:002012-03-15T21:58:37.443-04:00Okay a bit more, its divisible by the sum of its d...Okay a bit more, its divisible by the sum of its digits as well.Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-241142268174332962012-03-15T14:24:18.500-04:002012-03-15T14:24:18.500-04:00The sum of the digits is the answer to the epoch q...The sum of the digits is the answer to the epoch question - What is the meaning of life the universe and everything -Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-9252966836265030012012-03-15T09:46:21.468-04:002012-03-15T09:46:21.468-04:00It lacks a '3'It lacks a '3'Bayesian Bouffant, FCDnoreply@blogger.com