# Talk:Narcissistic decimal number

## task clarification

According to this task's link to Wolfram MathWorld (TM), a narcissistic number is an N-digit number whose ...

The first narcissistic number is 0 (zero).

According to OEIS (The On-line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (R)), the first narcissistic number is 0 (zero).

This would change what numbers are listed when displaying 25 narcissistic numbers.

I would prefer mentioning that narcissistic numbers are non-negative integers. After all, 15.3 is a decimal number.

Also, for those searching for Armstrong numbers, maybe a note saying:

Narcissistic numbers are also known as:

- Armstrong numbers
- Perfect digital invariant (Madachy 1979)
- Plus perfect numbers (Hardy 1993)

Narcissistic numbers are similar to *powerful numbers*. Powerful numbers are integers that are equal to some fixed (integer) power of their digits.

The list of narcissistic numbers is finite (89).

-- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

- Yep. There's work to do on the task description, but hopefully it will not be too confusing until it is updated. --Paddy3118 (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

- I think this task should be downgraded to a draft task until the definition of Rosetta Code's description of a narcissistic number is corrected. Some programming examples are using 0 (zero) as the first narcissistic numbers, others are using 1 (one); this makes the list of the first 25 numbers problematic. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

- Additions done. Other names for the numbers etc. don't affect completing the task. --Paddy3118 (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

- My main concern was the use of
*a positive number*(or number). That has been corrected. As far as the other names, people searching for an algorithm for Armstrong numbers (or the other names) would now be able to find it easier. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

- My main concern was the use of

- Added three new Re-directs for alternative names mentioned above. --Paddy3118 (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

## D language comparative speedup?

How about astatement like "The faster version has an $n times speedup over the first"? --Paddy3118 (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

- The first D entry is just very slow compared to the second one, because it's not meant to be fast -bearophile (talk)

## a complete list of narcissistic numbers

For those that are interested, here is a complete list of all the narcissistic numbers, produced by my $CALC (REXX) program by specifying:

- $CALC narcissistic(1,89)

╔════════════════════╗ ║ narcissistic(1,89) ║ ╚════════════════════╝ 1► 0 2► 1 3► 2 4► 3 5► 4 6► 5 7► 6 8► 7 9► 8 10► 9 11► 153 12► 370 13► 371 14► 407 15► 1,634 16► 8,208 17► 9,474 18► 54,748 19► 92,727 20► 93,084 21► 548,834 22► 1,741,725 23► 4,210,818 24► 9,800,817 25► 9,926,315 26► 24,678,050 27► 24,678,051 28► 88,593,477 29► 146,511,208 30► 472,335,975 31► 534,494,836 32► 912,985,153 33► 4,679,307,774 34► 32,164,049,650 35► 32,164,049,651 36► 40,028,394,225 37► 42,678,290,603 38► 44,708,635,679 39► 49,388,550,606 40► 82,693,916,578 41► 94,204,591,914 42► 28,116,440,335,967 43► 4,338,281,769,391,370 44► 4,338,281,769,391,371 45► 21,897,142,587,612,075 46► 35,641,594,208,964,132 47► 35,875,699,062,250,035 48► 1,517,841,543,307,505,039 49► 3,289,582,984,443,187,032 50► 4,498,128,791,164,624,869 51► 4,929,273,885,928,088,826 52► 63,105,425,988,599,693,916 53► 128,468,643,043,731,391,252 54► 449,177,399,146,038,697,307 55► 21,887,696,841,122,916,288,858 56► 27,879,694,893,054,074,471,405 57► 27,907,865,009,977,052,567,814 58► 28,361,281,321,319,229,463,398 59► 35,452,590,104,031,691,935,943 60► 174,088,005,938,065,293,023,722 61► 188,451,485,447,897,896,036,875 62► 239,313,664,430,041,569,350,093 63► 1,550,475,334,214,501,539,088,894 64► 1,553,242,162,893,771,850,669,378 65► 3,706,907,995,955,475,988,644,380 66► 3,706,907,995,955,475,988,644,381 67► 4,422,095,118,095,899,619,457,938 68► 121,204,998,563,613,372,405,438,066 69► 121,270,696,006,801,314,328,439,376 70► 128,851,796,696,487,777,842,012,787 71► 174,650,464,499,531,377,631,639,254 72► 177,265,453,171,792,792,366,489,765 73► 14,607,640,612,971,980,372,614,873,089 74► 19,008,174,136,254,279,995,012,734,740 75► 19,008,174,136,254,279,995,012,734,741 76► 23,866,716,435,523,975,980,390,369,295 77► 1,145,037,275,765,491,025,924,292,050,346 78► 1,927,890,457,142,960,697,580,636,236,639 79► 2,309,092,682,616,190,307,509,695,338,915 80► 17,333,509,997,782,249,308,725,103,962,772 81► 186,709,961,001,538,790,100,634,132,976,990 82► 186,709,961,001,538,790,100,634,132,976,991 83► 1,122,763,285,329,372,541,592,822,900,204,593 84► 12,639,369,517,103,790,328,947,807,201,478,392 85► 12,679,937,780,272,278,566,303,885,594,196,922 86► 1,219,167,219,625,434,121,569,735,803,609,966,019 87► 12,815,792,078,366,059,955,099,770,545,296,129,367 88► 115,132,219,018,763,992,565,095,597,973,971,522,400 89► 115,132,219,018,763,992,565,095,597,973,971,522,401

-- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

- Well, apart from the little matter of zero, your table matches the one on OEIS. --Paddy3118 (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

## AppleScript: "Functional" solution

Hi Hout. You were so busy blaming the language you chose to demonstrate for the problems with your code that you forgot to uncomment the line which at least makes it return 25 numbers. :) --Nig (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)