mersenneforum.org Sum of digits of x and powers of x
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2022-11-07, 21:51 #12 mart_r     Dec 2008 you know...around... 37716 Posts Take it, it's free While this thread is still on the front page, let me drop this number here: Code: 977501592599998899778899999999987869899997877899798979989989676889999889999899775899989798999998789769998994897988599999999988989899879989699897999798898997599889876898998999994977897978999988999939998887 It's a 204-digit prime number whose digital sum (1651) is larger than the digital sum of its cube (1639). I found it less than a day after my last post in this thread.
 2023-02-27, 20:19 #13 mart_r     Dec 2008 you know...around... 887 Posts Fifth powers riddle This could make for a nice puzzle, or at least serve as inspiration for further endeavors: (assume all mentioned variables being positive integers) For any base b, are there only finitely many numbers x not divisible by b such that the sum of digits of x is larger than the sum of digits of $$x^5$$ (in base b)? Or is there a threshold $$b_0$$ above which all $$b > b_0$$ can have infinitely many (or at least one) such solutions? (Is $$b_0$$=283 for fifth powers?) Some solutions for $$b \leq 100$$ (searched up to $$x=10^8$$): Code:  b x 8 4* 27 9*, 23 32 2*, 4*, 8*, 16* 39 177716 40 20* 53 8210 54 18*, 36*, 138* 55 31 60 42 64 16*, 32*, 48*, 245408* 72 36* 77 822816 79 16255431 90 299047 92 52881676 96 24*, 48*, 6600*, 17256* 98 7140* * semi-trivial solutions, since b|x^5 For $$b > 100$$, more and more non-trivial solutions appear (the next one is b=102, x=4767). b=27 seems to yield the smallest non-trivial solution. Or might there be a smaller b for which such a solution can be found? What about higher prime powers p? It is trivial to show that there are arbitrarily large bases b for which $$x \geq 3$$ (mutually, all $$x^n$$ for $$1 \leq n \leq p-1$$) is a solution whenever $$b=x^p+2-x$$. Excluding all those trivial and semi-trivial solutions, for p=7 so far the smallest (in terms of b) non-trivial solution I found was b=492, x=121820. Is it possible to find a non-trivial solution for larger p? Have I overlooked a way to trivially construct solutions?
 2023-05-28, 18:21 #14 mart_r     Dec 2008 you know...around... 887 Posts Useless as usual As of today, 10k views and no more replies. Um... go me?

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Boltzmann brain Miscellaneous Math 2 2020-02-09 18:35 Uncwilly Lounge 15 2010-03-31 07:13 plandon Math 7 2009-06-30 21:29 nibble4bits Math 31 2007-12-11 12:56 Numbers Puzzles 3 2005-07-13 04:42

All times are UTC. The time now is 14:11.

Sat Jun 10 14:11:02 UTC 2023 up 296 days, 11:39, 0 users, load averages: 0.64, 0.85, 0.82