Anonymous user
Talk:Kaprekar numbers: Difference between revisions
→Just for fun: new section
(→Just for fun: new section) |
|||
Line 129:
::[[User:Toucan|Toucan]] 11:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
:True. I added the non-base10 extra requirement, and the printing part is there to clearly show if a solution decoupled the numerical aspect from a number's string representation. The base 17 was specifically chosen because languages often can handle base conversion up to 16 natively, so 17 may require a hand-rolled string conversion, which can also be interesting while not difficult. Plus, if you print it out in base 17, it's much easier for a human reader to see the correctness of the solution. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 21:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
== Just for fun ==
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)
| |||