Anonymous user
Talk:Kaprekar numbers: Difference between revisions
m
→Just for fun: added a new talk section.
(→We've been linked to from a prestigious source: Other mentions around Kaprekar variant sequences in OEIS.) |
m (→Just for fun: added a new talk section.) |
||
| (37 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
==We've been linked to from a prestigious source==
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:
And on this entry [https://oeis.org/A194218 A194218] we get mentioned a second time as a place to compare programs! This is just brilliant to me as I have admired OEIS for what it collates for some time. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
: Sweet. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
==Java count missing==
Line 35 ⟶ 36:
::Right. The "whole numbers" verbage avoids the issue of explaining that chains of zeros do not fulfil the criteria, (although we would probably still need to keep that as a note to remind the task implementers.) --[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 16:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
:::"Whole numbers", to me, includes 0 so I don't think that works that way. Is "whole numbers" an official mathematical set like "natural numbers"? Maybe say "split in to two positive parts"? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
::::There isn't a consensus on the definition of a whole number, natural numbers, or counting number (especially in grammer/grade/highschool/secondary school texts). See the links for "Mathworld" http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WholeNumber.html, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NaturalNumber.html, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CountingNumber.html, all those seem to prefer defintions based on integers (positive integers, nonnegative integers, negative intergers, ∙∙∙ --[[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Generally zero is not considered to be a whole number, but there are people who would disagree. We could use the term "integers greater than or equal to one" --[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 19:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 138 ⟶ 141:
For fun I tried reversing the digits in the squared number (e.g. using "5203" as the "squared number" for 55 instead of "3025") to see if there would be any pattern in the new results. There were some overlaps for numbers that were all repeating digits. I didn't see anything notable. I got 17 rakerpak (kaprekar backwards....get it?) each for base 10 and 17. The code isn't notable either (just add a bit to one line to reverse the string representation of the squared number). I thought it would be kinda neat to think about. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
== ooRexx ==
I tried this for ooRexx
Had to change # to n
But get a syntax error for j=100000 since s=1E+10
It works with Numeric Digits 14
--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] 14:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
| |||