Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, for example to check if a number is divisible by 3, we can use the digit sum and check if the result is divisible by 3, e.g. 153=(1)+(5)+(3)=9. This works in base-10, but we can generalize this by converting the dividend X into (3* X+1)-base then doing a digit sum. Let's say we want to check whether 238 is divisible by 17, so our base is 3* 17+1=52, 238 in base-52 is (4)+(30)=34=2* 17. If the convert-to-arbitra…
Is it unreasonable to think that some operations might be cheaper to compute by the converting the base and applying these types of tests?
Any positive number can be written as a sum of three palindromes
111–114 of 114 posts
Re: Any positive number can be written as a sum of three palindromes
#112Why three? Anyone have a theory (or the answer)?
Well, there is a whole 40+ page paper on the algorithm and its proof of correctness. So, yes there is an answer. https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06208
Re: Any positive number can be written as a sum of three palindromes
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a stronger generalization: it's true of any divisor of the base (not just prime divisors and not just proper divisors). For example, it works for divisibility by 6 in base 12, or divisibility by 10 in base 10. (Also, the digital root test, where you add up the digits, works for any divisor that is also a divisor of the base minus 1, so for example hexadecimal has a digital root test for divisibility by 3, 5,…
And the less well known "add and subtract alternative digits" works for dividing by 11, that is, the base plus one, in any base. And for any divisors of 11.
Re: Any positive number can be written as a sum of three palindromes
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO that's like saying higher level programming languages than assembly are unnecessary. Or that a debugger is useless. And not just the learning purposes. Imagine the possibilities if we could properly simulate (and speed up the simulation) the world - what if we could use genetic algorithms to develop an organism.
> IMHO that's like saying higher level programming languages than assembly are unnecessary. Or that a debugger is useless. These two statements are quite different. Higher level programming languages than assembly are unnecessary; anything beyond the lambda calculus is unnecessary (assuming our goal is to compute Turing computable things). That's very different from saying that they're useless; just because they can…