Re: Numbers that have the same digits as their factors.
- From: "Bob" <forslund@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:47:46 -0400
<mensanator@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151626562.186165.221150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>
1155(10) = 3 x 5 x 7 x 11 = 1121111211(2) = 11(2) x 21(2) x 111(2) x
211(2)
Uh...why are the factors in reverse order compared to the previous
example? Why isn't 1155(10) = 2111112111(2)? Because that evaluates
to 1543(10)?
That's a good question about why the factors in this example are in reverse
order.
Also why are there so few examples like these three? And why are the factors
3, 5, 7 and 11 involved? And what happens in other bases?
Lots more to explore.
Most people _will_ because our existing number system is much more familiar.
That's real useful.
I think I'll stick to using 0s, at least they are consistent.
We were never taught the alternate number system. However zero behaves
differently than all the other digits if you are manipulating digits.
Whereas in the alternate number system, all digits behave the same. For
example, the number 12300 when reversed in the existing system, degenerates
to 321 and looses 2 digits. This does not occur in the alternate system. ie
no digits are lost.
Enjoy - Bob
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Numbers that have the same digits as their factors.
- From: mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Numbers that have the same digits as their factors.
- References:
- Numbers that have the same digits as their factors.
- From: Bill J.
- Re: Numbers that have the same digits as their factors.
- From: Bob
- Re: Numbers that have the same digits as their factors.
- From: mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Numbers that have the same digits as their factors.
- Prev by Date: Re: function space cardinality
- Next by Date: help with an integral which looks similar to elliptic integrals.
- Previous by thread: Re: Numbers that have the same digits as their factors.
- Next by thread: Re: Numbers that have the same digits as their factors.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
