T4K1NG S3LF13S

It’s like watching a seed grow. You take a number and count how many 0s it contains, then how many 1s, how many 2s, 3s, 4s and so on. Then you create a new number by writing the count of each digit followed by the digit itself. Then you repeat the process with the new number.

Here’s how it works if you start with the number 1:

1

The count of digits is one 1, so the new number is this:

→ 11

The count of digits for 11 is two 1s, so the next number is:

→ 21

The count of digits for 21 is one 1, one 2, so the next number is:

→ 1112

The count of digits for 1112 is three 1s, one 2, so the next number is:

→ 3112

The count of digits for 3112 is two 1s, one 2, one 3, so the next number is:

→ 211213

What happens after that? Here are the numbers as a sequence:

1 → 11 → 21 → 1112 → 3112 → 211213 → 312213 → 212223 → 114213 → 31121314 → 41122314 → 31221324 → 21322314

That’s all you need, because something interesting happens with 21322314. The digit count is two 1s, three 2s, two 3s, one 4, so the next number is:

→ 21322314

In other words, 21322314 is what might be called a self-descriptive number: it describes the count of its own digits. That’s why I think this procedure is like watching a seed grow. You start with the tiny seed of 1 and end in the giant oak of 21322314, whose factorization is 2 * 3^2 * 13 * 91121. But there are many more self-descriptive numbers in base ten and some of them are much bigger than 21322314. A047841 at the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences lists all 109 of them (and calls them “autobiographical numbers”). Here are a few, starting with the simplest possible:

22 → two 2s → 22
10213223 → one 0, two 1s, three 2s, two 3s → 10213223
10311233 → one 0, three 1s, one 2, three 3s → 10311233
21322314 → two 1s, three 2s, two 3s, one 4 → 21322314
21322315 → two 1s, three 2s, two 3s, one 5 → 21322315
21322316 → two 1s, three 2s, two 3s, one 6 → 21322316*
1031223314 → one 0, three 1s, two 2s, three 3s, one 4 → 10
31223314
3122331415 → three 1s, two 2s, three 3s, one 4, one 5
→ 3122331415
3122331416 → three 1s, two 2s, three 3s, one 4, one 6
→ 3122331416*

*And for 21322317, 21322318, 21322319; 3122331417, 3122331418, 3122331419.


And here’s what happens when you seed a sequence with a number containing all possible digits in base ten:

1234567890 → 10111213141516171819 → 101111213141516171819 → 101211213141516171819 → 101112213141516171819

That final number is self-descriptive:

101112213141516171819 → one 0, eleven 1s, two 2s, one 3, one 4, one 5, one 6, one 7, one 8, one 9 → 101112213141516171819

So some numbers are self-descriptive and some start a sequence that ends in a self-descriptive number. But that doesn’t exhaust the possibilities. Some numbers are part of a loop:

103142132415 → 104122232415 → 103142132415
104122232415 → 103142132415 → 104122232415
1051421314152619 → 1061221324251619 → 1051421314152619…
5142131415261819 → 6122132425161819 → 5142131415261819
106142131416271819 → 107122132426171819 → 106142131416271819


10512223142518 → 10414213142518 → 10512213341518 → 10512223142518
51222314251718 → 41421314251718 → 51221334151718 →
51222314251718

But all that is base ten. What about other bases? In fact, nearly all self-descriptive numbers in base ten are also self-descriptive in other bases. An infinite number of other bases, in fact. 22 is a self-descriptive number for all b > 2. The sequence seeded with 1 is identical in all b > 4:

1 → 11 → 21 → 1112 → 3112 → 211213 → 312213 → 212223 → 114213 → 31121314 → 41122314 → 31221324 → 2132231421322314

In bases 2, 3 and 4, the sequence seeded with 1 looks like this:

1 → 11 → 101 → 10101 → 100111 → 1001001 → 1000111 → 11010011101001… (b=2) (1101001[2] = 105 in base 10)
1 → 11 → 21 → 1112 → 10112 → 1010112 → 2011112 → 10111221011122… (b=3) (1011122[3] = 854 in base 10)
1 → 11 → 21 → 1112 → 3112 → 211213 → 312213 → 212223 → 1110213 → 101011213 → 201111213 → 101112213101112213… (b=4) (101112213[4] = 71079 in base 10)

In base 2 there are only two self-descriptive numbers (and no loops):

111 → three 1s → 111… (b=2) (111 = 7 in base 10)
1101001 → three 0s, four 1s → 1101001… (b=2) (1101001 = 105 in base 10)

So if you apply the “count digits” procedure in base 2, all numbers, except 111, begin a sequence that ends in 1101001. Base 3 has a few more self-descriptive numbers and also some loops:

2222… (b >= 3)
10111 → one 0, four 1s → 10111… (b=3)
11112 → four 1s, one 2 → 11112
100101 → three 0s, three 1s → 100101… (b=3)
1011122 → one 0, four 1s, two 2s → 1011122… (b=3)
2021102 → two 0s, two 1s, three 2s → 2021102… (b=3)
10010122 → three 0s, three 1s, two 2s → 10010122


2012112 → 10101102 → 10011112 → 2012112
10011112 → 2012112 → 10101102 → 10011112
10101102 → 10011112 → 2012112 → 10101102

A question I haven’t been able to answer: Is there a base in which loops can be longer than these?

103142132415 → 104122232415 → 103142132415
10512223142518 → 10414213142518 → 10512213341518 → 10512223142518

A question I have been able to answer: What is the sequence when it’s seeded with the title of this blog-post? T4K1NGS3LF13S is a number in all bases >= 30 and its base-30 form equals 15,494,492,743,722,316,018 in base 10 (with the factorization 2 * 72704927 * 106557377767). If T4K1NGS3LF13S seeds a sequence in any b >= 30, the result looks like this:

T4K1NGS3LF13S → 2123141F1G1K1L1N2S1T → 813213141F1G1K1L1N1S1T → A1122314181F1G1K1L1N1S1T → B1221314181A1F1G1K1L1N1S1T → C1221314181A1B1F1G1K1L1N1S1T → D1221314181A1B1C1F1G1K1L1N1S1T → E1221314181A1B1C1D1F1G1K1L1N1S1T → F1221314181A1B1C1D1E1F1G1K1L1N1S1T → G1221314181A1B1C1D1E2F1G1K1L1N1S1T → F1321314181A1B1C1D1E1F2G1K1L1N1S1T → F1222314181A1B1C1D1E2F1G1K1L1N1S1T → E1421314181A1B1C1D1E2F1G1K1L1N1S1T → F1221324181A1B1C1D2E1F1G1K1L1N1S1T → E1421314181A1B1C1D1E2F1G1K1L1N1S1T

Advertisements

Can You Dij It? #2

It’s very simple, but I’m fascinated by it. I’m talking about something I call the digit-line, or the stream of digits you get when you split numbers in a particular base into individual digits. For example, here are the numbers one to ten in bases 2 and 3:

Base = 2: 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010…
Base = 3: 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 100, 101…


If you turn them into digit-lines, they look like this:

Base = 2: 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0… (A030190 in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences)
Base = 3: 1, 2, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1… (A003137 in the OEIS)


At the tenth digit of the two digit-lines, both digits equal zero for the first time:

Base = 2: 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0
Base = 3: 1, 2, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0


When the binary and ternary digits are represented together, the digit-lines look like this:

(1,1), (1,2), (0,1), (1,0), (1,1), (1,1), (0,1), (0,2), (1,2), (0,0)


But in base 4, the tenth digit of the digit-line is 1. So when do all the digits of the digit-line first equal zero for bases 2 to 4? Here the early integers in those bases:

Base 2: 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010, 1011, 1100, 1101, 1110, 1111, 10000, 10001, 10010, 10011, 10100, 10101…

Base 3: 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 100, 101, 102, 110, 111, 112, 120, 121, 122, 200, 201, 202, 210, 211, 212, 220, 221, 222, 1000, 1001, 1002…

Base 4: 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 100, 101, 102, 103, 110, 111, 112, 113, 120, 121, 122, 123, 130, 131, 132, 133, 200…


And here are the digits of the digit-line in bases 2 to 4 represented together:

(1,1,1), (1,2,2), (0,1,3), (1,0,1), (1,1,0), (1,1,1), (0,1,1), (0,2,1), (1,2,2), (0,0,1), (1,2,3), (1,1,2), (1,2,0), (0,2,2), (1,1,1), (1,0,2), (1,0,2), (1,1,2), (0,0,3), (0,1,3), (0,1,0), (1,0,3), (0,2,1), (0,1,3), (1,1,2), (1,0,3), (0,1,3), (1,1,1), (0,1,0), (1,1,0), (0,1,1), (1,2,0), (1,1,1), (1,2,1), (1,0,0), (0,1,2), (0,2,1), (1,1,0), (1,1,3), (0,2,1), (1,2,1), (1,2,0), (1,0,1), (1,0,1), (0,2,1), (1,0,1), (1,1,1), (1,2,2), (1,0,1), (1,2,1), (0,2,3), (0,1,1), (0,0,2), (0,2,0), (1,1,1), (0,1,2), (0,2,1), (0,1,1), (1,2,2), (1,2,2), (0,2,1), (0,0,2), (1,2,3), (0,2,1), (1,1,3), (0,2,0), (0,2,1), (1,2,3), (1,1,1), (1,0,1), (0,0,3), (1,0,2), (0,1,1), (0,0,3), (1,0,3), (0,1,2), (1,1,0), (0,0,0)

At the 78th digit, all three digits equal zero. But the 78th digit of the digit-line in base 5 is 1. So when are the digits first equal to zero in bases 2 to 5? It’s not difficult to find out, but the difficulty of the search increases fast as the bases get bigger. Here are the results up to base 13 (note that bases 11 and 12 both have zeroes at digit 103721663):

dig=0 in bases 2 to 3 at the 10th digit of the digit-line
dig=0 in bases 2 to 4 at the 78th digit of the digit-line
dig=0 in bases 2 to 5 at the 182nd digit of the digit-line
dig=0 in bases 2 to 6 at the 302nd digit of the digit-line
dig=0 in bases 2 to 7 at the 12149th digit of the digit-line
dig=0 in bases 2 to 8 at the 45243rd digit of the digit-line
dig=0 in bases 2 to 9 at the 255261st digit of the digit-line
dig=0 in bases 2 to 10 at the 8850623rd digit of the digit-line
dig=0 in bases 2 to 12 at the 103721663rd digit of the digit-line
dig=0 in bases 2 to 13 at the 807778264th digit of the digit-line


I assume that, for any base b > 2, you can find some point in the digit-line at which d = 0 for all bases 2 to b. Indeed, I assume that this happens infinitely often. But I don’t know any short-cut for finding the first digit at which this occurs.


Previously pre-posted:

Can You Dij It? #1

Get Your Ox Off

Boustrophedon (pronounced “bough-stra-FEE-dun” or “boo-stra-FEE-dun”) is an ancient Greek word literally meaning “as the ox turns (in ploughing)”, that is, moving left-right, right-left, and so on. The word is used of writing that runs down the page in the same way. To see what that means, examine two versions of the first paragraph of Clark Ashton Smith’s story “The Demon of the Flower” (1933). The first is written in the usual way, the second is written boustrophedon:

Not as the plants and flowers of Earth, growing peacefully beneath a simple sun, were the blossoms of the planet Lophai. Coiling and uncoiling in double dawns; tossing tumultuously under vast suns of jade green and balas-ruby orange; swaying and weltering in rich twilights, in aurora-curtained nights, they resembled fields of rooted servants that dance eternally to an other-worldly music.


Not as the plants and flowers of Earth, growing peacefully
.iahpoL tenalp eht fo smossolb eht erew ,nus elpmis a htaeneb
Coiling and uncoiling in double dawns; tossing tumultuously
;egnaro ybur-salab dna neerg edaj fo snus tsav rednu
swaying and weltering in rich twilights, in aurora-curtained
ecnad taht stnavres detoor fo sdleif delbmeser yeht ,sthgin
eternally to an other-worldly music.


Boustrophedon writing was once common and sometimes the left-right lines would also be mirror-reversed, like this:
CAS_text1


You could also use the term “boustrophedon” to describe the way this table of numbers is filled:

primes_table


The table begins with “1” in the top left-hand corner, then moves right for “2”, then down for “3”, then right-and-up for “4”, “5” and “6”, then right for “7”, then left-and-down for “8”, “9” and “10”, and so on. You could also say that the numbers snake through the table. I’ve marked the primes among them, because I was interested in the patterns made by the primes when the numbers were represented as blocks on a grid, like this:

primes_large


Primes are in solid white (compare the Ulam spiral). Here’s the boustrophedon prime-grid on a finer scale:

primes

(click for full image)


And what about other number-tests? Here are the even numbers marked on the grid (i.e. n mod 2 = 0):

mod2

n mod 2 = 0


And here are some more examples of a modulus test:

mod3

n mod 3 = 0


mod5

n mod 5 = 0


mod9

n mod 9 = 0


mod15

n mod 15 = 0


mod_various

n mod various = 0 (animated gif)


Next I looked at reciprocals (numbers divided into 1) marked on the grid, with the digits of a reciprocal marking the number of blank squares before a square is filled in (if the digit is “0”, the square is filled immediately). For example, in base ten 1/7 = 0.142857142857142857…, where the block “142857” repeats for ever. When represented on the grid, 1/7 has 1 blank square, then a filled square, then 4 blank squares, then a filled square, then 2 blank squares, then a filled square, and so on:

recip7_base10

1/7 in base 10


And here are some more reciprocals (click for full images):

recip9_base2

1/9 in base 2


recip13_base10

1/13 in base 10


recip27_base10

1/27 in base 10


recip41_base10

1/41 in base 10


recip63_base10

1/63 in base 10


recip82_base10

1/82 in base 10


recip101_base10

1/101 in base 10


recip104_base10

1/104 in base 10


recip124_base10

1/124 in base 10


recip143_base10

1/143 in base 10


recip175_base10

1/175 in base 10


recip604_base8

1/604 in base 8


recip_various

1/n in various bases (animated gif)


Digital Rodeo

What a difference a digit makes. Suppose you take all representations of n in bases b <= n. When n = 3, the bases are 2 and 3, so 3 = 11 and 10, respectively. Next, count the occurrences of the digit 1:

digitcount(3, digit=1, n=11, 10) = 3

Add this digit-count to 3:

3 + digitcount(3, digit=1, n=11, 10) = 3 + 3 = 6.

Now apply the same procedure to 6. The bases will be 2 to 6:

6 + digitcount(6, digit=1, n=110, 20, 12, 11, 10) = 6 + 6 = 12

The procedure, n = n + digitcount(n,digit=1,base=2..n), continues like this:

12 + digcount(12,dig=1,n=1100, 110, 30, 22, 20, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 12 + 11 = 23
23 + digcount(23,dig=1,n=10111, 212, 113, 43, 35, 32, 27, 25, 23, 21, 1B, 1A, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 23 + 21 = 44
44 + digcount(44,dig=1,n=101100, 1122, 230, 134, 112, 62, 54, 48, 44, 40, 38, 35, 32, 2E, 2C, 2A, 28, 26, 24, 22, 20, 1L, 1K, 1J, 1I, 1H, 1G, 1F, 1E, 1D, 1C, 1B, 1A, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 44 + 31 = 75

And the sequence develops like this:

3, 6, 12, 23, 44, 75, 124, 202, 319, 503, 780, 1196, 1824, 2766, 4191, 6338, 9546, 14383, 21656, 32562, 48930, 73494, 110361, 165714, 248733, 373303, 560214, 840602, 1261237, 1892269, 2838926, 4258966, 6389157, 9584585, 14377879…

Now try the same procedure using the digit 0: n = n + digcount(n,dig=0,base=2..n). The first step is this:

3 + digcount(3,digit=0,n=11, 10) = 3 + 1 = 4

Next come these:

4 + digcount(4,dig=0,n=100, 11, 10) = 4 + 3 = 7
7 + digcount(7,dig=0,n=111, 21, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 7 + 1 = 8
8 + digcount(8,dig=0,n=1000, 22, 20, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 8 + 5 = 13
13 + digcount(13,dig=0,n=1101, 111, 31, 23, 21, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 13 + 2 = 15
15 + digcount(15,dig=0,n=1111, 120, 33, 30, 23, 21, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 15 + 3 = 18
18 + digcount(18,dig=0,n=10010, 200, 102, 33, 30, 24, 22, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 18 + 9 = 27
27 + digcount(27,dig=0,n=11011, 1000, 123, 102, 43, 36, 33, 30, 27, 25, 23, 21, 1D, 1C, 1B, 1A, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 27 + 7 = 34
34 + digcount(34,dig=0,n=100010, 1021, 202, 114, 54, 46, 42, 37, 34, 31, 2A, 28, 26, 24, 22, 20, 1G, 1F, 1E, 1D, 1C, 1B, 1A, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 34 + 8 = 42
42 + digcount(42,dig=0,n=101010, 1120, 222, 132, 110, 60, 52, 46, 42, 39, 36, 33, 30, 2C, 2A, 28, 26, 24, 22, 20, 1K, 1J, 1I, 1H, 1G, 1F, 1E, 1D, 1C, 1B, 1A, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 42 + 9 = 51

The sequence develops like this:

3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 27, 34, 42, 51, 59, 62, 66, 80, 94, 99, 111, 117, 125, 132, 151, 158, 163, 173, 180, 204, 222, 232, 244, 258, 279, 292, 307, 317, 324, 351, 364, 382, 389, 400, 425, 437, 447, 454, 466, 475, 483, 494, 509, 517, 536, 553, 566, 576, 612, 637, 649, 669, 679, 693, 712, 728, 753, 768, 801, 822, 835, 849, 862, 869, 883, 895, 906, 923, 932, 943, 949, 957, 967, 975, 999, 1011…

If you compare it with the sequence for digit=1, it appears that digcount(n,dig=1,b=2..n) is always larger than digcount(n,dig=0,b=2..n). That is in fact the case, with one exception, when n = 2:

digcount(2,dig=1,n=10) = 1
digcount(2,dig=0,n=10) = 1

When n = 10 (in base ten), there are twice as many ones as zeros:

digcount(10,dig=1,n=1010, 101, 22, 20, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 10
digcount(10,dig=0,n=1010, 101, 22, 20, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 5

As n gets larger, the difference grows dramatically:

digcount(100,dig=1,base=2..n) = 64
digcount(100,dig=0,base=2..n) = 16

digcount(1000,dig=1,base=2..n) = 533
digcount(1000,dig=0,base=2..n) = 25

digcount(10000,dig=1,base=2..n) = 5067
digcount(10000,dig=0,base=2..n) = 49

digcount(100000,dig=1,base=2..n) = 50140
digcount(100000,dig=0,base=2..n) = 73

digcount(1000000,dig=1,base=2..n) = 500408
digcount(1000000,dig=0,base=2..n) = 102

digcount(10000000,dig=1,base=2..n) = 5001032
digcount(10000000,dig=0,base=2..n) = 134

digcount(100000000,dig=1,base=2..n) = 50003137
digcount(100000000,dig=0,base=2..n) = 160

In fact, digcount(n,dig=1,b=2..n) is greater than the digit-count for any other digit: 0, 2, 3, 4, 5… (with the exception n = 2, as shown above). But digit=0 sometimes beats digits >= 2. For example, when n = 18:

digcount(18,dig=0,n=10010, 200, 102, 33, 30, 24, 22, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 9
digcount(18,dig=2,n=10010, 200, 102, 33, 30, 24, 22, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 7
digcount(18,dig=3,n=10010, 200, 102, 33, 30, 24, 22, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 4
digcount(18,dig=4,n=10010, 200, 102, 33, 30, 24, 22, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 2
digcount(18,dig=5,n=10010, 200, 102, 33, 30, 24, 22, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 1

But as n gets larger, digcount(0) will fall permanently behind all these digits. However, digcount(0) will always be greater than some digit d, for the obvious reason that some digits only appear when the base is high enough. For example, the hexadecimal digit A (with the decimal value 10) first appears when n = 21:

digcount(21,dig=A,n=10101, 210, 111, 41, 33, 30, 25, 23, 21, 1A, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 1 digcount(21,dig=0,n=10101, 210, 111, 41, 33, 30, 25, 23, 21, 1A, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 5

There is a general rule for the n at which digit d first appears, n = 2d + 1 (this doesn’t apply when d = 0 or d = 1):

d = 2, n = 5 = 2*2 + 1
digcount(5,dig=2,n=101, 12, 11, 10) = 1

d = 3, n = 7 = 2*3 + 1
digcount(7,dig=3,n=111, 21, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 1

d = 4, n = 9 = 2*4 + 1
digcount(9,dig=4,n=1001, 100, 21, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 1

d = 5, n = 11 = 2*5 + 1
digcount(11,dig=5,n=1011, 102, 23, 21, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) = 1

It should be apparent, then, that the digit-count for a particular digit starts at 1 and gets gradually higher. The rate at which the digit-count increases is highest for 1 and lowest for 0, with digits 2, 3, 4, 5… in between:

All-Base Graph

Graph for digcount(n,dig=d,b=2..n)


You could think of the graph as a digital rodeo in which these digits compete with each other. 1 is the clear and permanent winner, 0 the gradual loser. Now recall the procedure introduced at the start: n = n + digcount(n,dig=d,b=2..n). When it’s applied to the digits 0 to 5, these are the sequences that appear:

n = n + digcount(n,dig=0,b=2..n)

2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 27, 34, 42, 51, 59, 62, 66, 80, 94, 99, 111, 117, 125, 132, 151, 158, 163, 173, 180, 204, 222, 232, 244, 258, 279, 292, 307, 317, 324, 351, 364, 382, 389, 400, 425, 437, 447, 454, 466, 475, 483, 494, 509, 517, 536, 553, 566, 576, 612, 637, 649, 669, 679, 693, 712, 728, 753, 768, 801, 822, 835, 849, 862, 869, 883, 895, 906, 923, 932, 943, 949, 957, 967, 975, 999, 1011…

n = n + digcount(n,dig=1,b=2..n)

2, 3, 6, 12, 23, 44, 75, 124, 202, 319, 503, 780, 1196, 1824, 2766, 4191, 6338, 9546, 14383, 21656, 32562, 48930, 73494, 110361, 165714, 248733, 373303, 560214, 840602, 1261237, 1892269, 2838926, 4258966, 6389157, 9584585, 14377879…

n = n + digcount(n,dig=2,b=2..n)

5, 6, 8, 12, 16, 22, 31, 37, 48, 60, 76, 94, 115, 138, 173, 213, 257, 311, 374, 454, 542, 664, 790, 935, 1109, 1310, 1552, 1835, 2167, 2548, 2989, 3509, 4120, 4832, 5690, 6687, 7829, 9166, 10727, 12568, 14697, 17182, 20089, 23470, 27425, 32042, 37477, 43768, 51113, 59687, 69705, 81379, 94998, 110910, 129488, 151153, 176429, 205923, 240331, 280490, 327396, 382067, 445858…

n = n + digcount(n,dig=3,b=2..n)

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 25, 29, 34, 38, 44, 50, 56, 63, 80, 90, 104, 113, 131, 151, 169, 188, 210, 236, 261, 289, 320, 350, 385, 424, 463, 520, 572, 626, 684, 747, 828, 917, 999, 1101, 1210, 1325, 1446, 1577, 1716, 1871, 2040, 2228, 2429, 2642, 2875, 3133, 3413, 3719, 4044, 4402, 4786, 5196, 5645, 6140, 6673, 7257, 7900, 8582, 9315, 10130, 10998, 11942, 12954, 14058…

n = n + digcount(n,dig=4,b=2..n)

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 34, 41, 44, 52, 61, 67, 74, 85, 92, 102, 113, 121, 134, 148, 170, 184, 208, 229, 253, 269, 287, 306, 324, 356, 386, 410, 439, 469, 501, 531, 565, 604, 662, 703, 742, 794, 845, 895, 953, 1007, 1062, 1127, 1188, 1262, 1336, 1421, 1503, 1585, 1676, 1777, 1876, 2001, 2104, 2249, 2375, 2502, 2636, 2789, 2938, 3102, 3267, 3444, 3644, 3868, 4099…

n = n + digcount(n,dig=5,b=2..n)

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 28, 29, 33, 37, 41, 48, 50, 55, 60, 64, 67, 72, 75, 83, 91, 96, 102, 107, 118, 123, 129, 137, 151, 159, 171, 180, 192, 202, 211, 224, 233, 251, 268, 280, 296, 310, 324, 338, 355, 380, 401, 430, 455, 488, 511, 536, 562, 584, 607, 638, 664, 692, 718, 748, 778, 807, 838, 874, 911, 951, 993, 1039, 1081, 1124, 1166, 1216, 1264, 1313, 1370, 1432…

Can You Dij It? #1

The most powerful drug in the world is water. The second most powerful is language. But everyone’s on them, so nobody realizes how powerful they are. Well, you could stop drinking water. Then you’d soon realize its hold on the body and the brain.

But you can’t stop using language. Try it. No, the best way to realize the power of language is to learn a new one. Each is a feast with different flavours. New alphabets are good too. The Devanagari alphabet is one of the strongest, but if you want it in refined form, try the phonetic alphabet. It will transform the way you see the world. That’s because it will make you conscious of what you’re already subconsciously aware of.

But “language” is a bigger category that it used to be. Nowadays we have computer languages too. Learning one is another way of transforming the way you see the world. And like natural languages – French, Georgian, Tagalog – they come in different flavours. Pascal is not like Basic is not like C is not like Prolog. But all of them seem to put you in touch with some deeper aspect of reality. Computer languages are like mathemagick: a way to give commands to something immaterial and alter the world by the application of will.

That feeling is at its strongest when you program with machine code, the raw instructions used by the electronics of a computer. At its most fundamental, machine code is simply a series of binary numbers controlling how a computer processes other binary numbers. You can memorize and use those code-numbers, but it’s easier to use something like assembly language, which makes machine-code friendlier for human beings. But it still looks very odd to the uninitiated:

setupnum:
xor ax,ax
xor bp,bp
mov cx,20
clearloop:
mov [di+bp],ax
add bp,2
loop clearloop
ret

That’s almost at the binary bedrock. And machine code is fast. If a fast higher-level language like C feels like flying a Messerschmitt 262, which was a jet-plane, machine-code feels like flying a Messerschmitt 163, which was a rocket-plane. A very fast and very dangerous rocket-plane.

I’m not good at programming languages, least of all machine code, but they are fun to use, quite apart from the way they make you feel as though you’re in touch with a deeper aspect of reality. They do that because the world is mathematics at its most fundamental level, I think, and computer languages are a form of mathematics.

Their mathematical nature is disguised in a lot of what they’re used for, but I like to use them for recreational mathematics. Machine-code is useful when you need a lot of power and speed. For example, look at these digits:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1*, 0*, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 6, 1, 7, 1, 8, 1, 9, 2, 0, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 2, 6, 2, 7, 2, 8, 2, 9, 3, 0, 3, 1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3, 6*, 3*, 7, 3, 8, 3, 9, 4, 0, 4, 1, 4, 2, 4…

They’re what the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS) calls “the almost natural numbers” (sequence A007376) and you generate them by writing the standard integers – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13… – and then separating each digit with a comma: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3… The commas give them some interesting twists. In a list of the standard integers, the 1st entry is 1, the 10th entry is 10, the 213rd entry is 213, the 987,009,381th entry is 987,009,381, and so on.

But that doesn’t work with the almost natural numbers. The 10th entry is 1, not 10, and the 11th entry is 0, not 11. But the 10th entry does begin the sequence (1, 0). I wondered whether that happened again. It does. The 63rd entry in the almost natural numbers begins the sequence (6, 3) – see the asterisks in the sequence above.

This happens again at the 3105th entry, which begins the sequence (3, 1, 0, 5). After that the gaps get bigger, which is where machine code comes in. An ordinary computer-language takes a long time to reach the 89,012,345,679th entry in the almost natural numbers. Machine code is much quicker, which is why I know that the 89,012,345,679th entry begins the sequence (8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9):

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 63, 3105, 43108, 77781, 367573, 13859021, 77911127, 911360799, 35924813703, 74075186297, 89012345679…

And an ordinary computer-language might give you the impression that base 9 doesn’t have numbers like these (apart from the trivial 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10…). But it does. 63 in base 10 is a low-hanging fruit: you could find it working by hand. In base 9, the fruit are much higher-hanging. But machine code plucks them with almost ridiculous ease:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 570086565, 655267526, 2615038272, 4581347024, 5307541865, 7273850617, 7801234568…

Power Trip

Here are the first few powers of 2:

2 = 1 * 2
4 = 2 * 2
8 = 4 * 2
16 = 8 * 2
32 = 16 * 2
64 = 32 * 2
128 = 64 * 2
256 = 128 * 2
512 = 256 * 2
1024 = 512 * 2
2048 = 1024 * 2
4096 = 2048 * 2
8192 = 4096 * 2
16384 = 8192 * 2
32768 = 16384 * 2
65536 = 32768 * 2
131072 = 65536 * 2
262144 = 131072 * 2
524288 = 262144 * 2
1048576 = 524288 * 2
2097152 = 1048576 * 2
4194304 = 2097152 * 2
8388608 = 4194304 * 2
16777216 = 8388608 * 2
33554432 = 16777216 * 2
67108864 = 33554432 * 2…

As you can see, it’s a one-way power-trip: the numbers simply get larger. But what happens if you delete the digit 0 whenever it appears in a result? For example, 512 * 2 = 1024, which becomes 124. If you apply this rule, the sequence looks like this:

2 * 2 = 4
4 * 2 = 8
8 * 2 = 16
16 * 2 = 32
32 * 2 = 64
64 * 2 = 128
128 * 2 = 256
256 * 2 = 512
512 * 2 = 1024 → 124
124 * 2 = 248
248 * 2 = 496
496 * 2 = 992
992 * 2 = 1984
1984 * 2 = 3968
3968 * 2 = 7936
7936 * 2 = 15872
15872 * 2 = 31744
31744 * 2 = 63488
63488 * 2 = 126976
126976 * 2 = 253952
253952 * 2 = 507904 → 5794
5794 * 2 = 11588
11588 * 2 = 23176
23176 * 2 = 46352
46352 * 2 = 92704 → 9274…

Is this a power-trip? Not quite: it’s a return trip, because the numbers can never grow beyond a certain size and the sequence falls into a loop. If the result 2n contains a zero, then zerodelete(2n) < n, so the sequence has an upper limit and a number will eventually occur twice. This happens at step 526 with 366784, which matches 366784 at step 490.

The rate at which we delete zeros can obviously be varied. Call it 1:z. The sequence above sets z = 1, so 1:z = 1:1. But what if z = 2, so that 1:z = 1:2? In other words, the procedure deletes every second zero. The first zero occurs when 1024 = 2 * 512, so 1024 is left as it is. The second zero occurs when 2 * 1024 = 2048, so 2048 becomes 248. When z = 2 and every second zero is deleted, the sequence begins like this:

1 * 2 = 2
2 * 2 = 4
4 * 2 = 8
8 * 2 = 16
16 * 2 = 32
32 * 2 = 64
64 * 2 = 128
128 * 2 = 256
256 * 2 = 512
512 * 2 = 1024 → 1024
1024 * 2 = 2048 → 248
248 * 2 = 496
496 * 2 = 992
992 * 2 = 1984
1984 * 2 = 3968
3968 * 2 = 7936
7936 * 2 = 15872
15872 * 2 = 31744
31744 * 2 = 63488
63488 * 2 = 126976
126976 * 2 = 253952
253952 * 2 = 507904 → 50794
50794 * 2 = 101588 → 101588
101588 * 2 = 203176 → 23176
23176 * 2 = 46352
46352 * 2 = 92704 → 92704
92704 * 2 = 185408 → 18548

This sequence also has a ceiling and repeats at step 9134 with 5458864, which matches 5458864 at step 4166. And what about the sequence in which z = 3 and every third zero is deleted? Does this have a ceiling or does the act of multiplying by 2 compensate for the slower removal of zeros?

In fact, it can’t do so. The larger 2n becomes, the more zeros it will tend to contain. If 2n is large enough to contain 3 zeros on average, the deletion of zeros will overpower multiplication by 2 and the sequence will not rise any higher. Therefore the sequence that deletes every third zero will eventually repeat, although I haven’t been able to discover the relevant number.

But this reasoning applies to any rate, 1:z, of zero-deletion. If z = 100 and every hundredth zero is deleted, numbers in the sequence will rise to the point at which 2n contains sufficient zeros on average to counteract multiplication by 2. The sequence will have a ceiling and will eventually repeat. If z = 10^100 or z = 10^(10^100) and every googolth or googolplexth zero is deleted, the same is true. For any rate, 1:z, at which zeros are deleted, the sequence n = zerodelete(2n,z) has an upper limit and will eventually repeat.

Block n Rule

One of my favourite integer sequences uses the formula n(i) = n(i-1) + digsum(n(i-1)), where digsum(n) sums the digits of n. In base 10, it goes like this:

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 23, 28, 38, 49, 62, 70, 77, 91, 101, 103, 107, 115, 122, 127, 137, 148, 161, 169, 185, 199, 218, 229, 242, 250, 257, 271, 281, 292, 305, 313, 320, 325, 335, 346, 359, 376, 392, 406, 416, 427, 440, 448, 464, 478, 497, 517, 530, 538, 554, 568, 587, 607, 620, 628, 644, 658, 677, 697, 719, 736, 752, 766, 785, 805, 818, 835, 851, 865, 884, 904, 917, 934, 950, 964, 983, 1003…

Another interesting sequence uses the formula n(i) = n(i-1) + digprod(n(i-1)), where digprod(n) multiplies the digits of n (excluding 0). In base 10, it goes like this:

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 22, 26, 38, 62, 74, 102, 104, 108, 116, 122, 126, 138, 162, 174, 202, 206, 218, 234, 258, 338, 410, 414, 430, 442, 474, 586, 826, 922, 958, 1318, 1342, 1366, 1474, 1586, 1826, 1922, 1958, 2318, 2366, 2582, 2742, 2854, 3174, 3258, 3498, 4362, 4506, 4626, 4914, 5058, 5258, 5658, 6858, 8778, 11914, 11950, 11995…

You can apply these formulae in other bases and it’s trivially obvious that the sequences rise most slowly in base 2, because you’re never summing or multiplying anything but the digit 1. However, there is a sequence for which base 2 is by far the best performer. It has the formula n(i) = n(i-1) + blockmult(n(i-1)), where blockmult(n) counts the lengths of distinct blocks of the same digit, including 0, then multiplies those lengths together. For example:

blockmult(3,b=2) = blockmult(11) = 2
blockmult(28,b=2) = blockmult(11100) = 3 * 2 = 6
blockmult(51,b=2) = blockmult(110011) = 2 * 2 * 2 = 8
blockmult(140,b=2) = blockmult(10001100) = 1 * 3 * 2 * 2 = 12
blockmult(202867,b=2) = blockmult(110001100001110011) = 2 * 3 * 2 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 2 = 576

The full sequence begins like this (numbers are represented in base 10, but the formula is being applied to their representations in binary):

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 19, 23, 26, 28, 34, 37, 39, 45, 47, 51, 59, 65, 70, 76, 84, 86, 88, 94, 98, 104, 110, 116, 122, 126, 132, 140, 152, 164, 168, 171, 173, 175, 179, 187, 193, 203, 211, 219, 227, 245, 249, 259, 271, 287, 302, 308, 316, 332, 340, 342, 344, 350, 354, 360, 366, 372, 378, 382, 388, 404, 412, 436, 444, 460, 484, 500, 510, 518, 530, 538, 546, 555, 561, 579, 595, 603, 611, 635, 651, 657, 663, 669, 675, 681…

In higher bases, it rises much more slowly. This is base 3:

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 42, 44, 48, 49, 51, 53, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 82, 85, 89, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 110, 114, 116, 120, 124, 127, 129, 131, 133, 137, 139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, 163…

And this is base 10:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90…

Note how, in bases 3 and 10, blockmult(n) often equals 1. In base 3, the sequence contains [141, 142, 143, 145]:

blockmult(141,b=3) = blockmult(12020) = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 = 1
blockmult(142,b=3) = blockmult(12021) = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 = 1
blockmult(143,b=3) = blockmult(12022) = 1 * 1 * 1 * 2 = 2

The formula also returns 1 much further along the sequence in base 3. For example, the 573809th number in the sequence, or n(573809), is 5775037 and blockmult(5775037) = blockmult(101212101212021) = 1^15 = 1. But in base 2, blockmult(n) = 1 is very rare. It happens three times at the beginning of the sequence:

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11…

After that, I haven’t found any more examples of blockmult(n) = 1, although blockmult(n) = 2 occurs regularly. For example,

blockmult(n(100723)) = blockmult(44739241) = blockmult(10101010101010101010101001) = 2
blockmult(n(100724)) = blockmult(44739243) = blockmult(10101010101010101010101011) = 2
blockmult(n(100725)) = blockmult(44739245) = blockmult(10101010101010101010101101) = 2

Does the sequence in base 2 return another example of blockmult(n) = 1? The odds seem against it. For any given number of digits in base 2, there is only one number for which blockmult(n) = 1. For example: 1, 10, 101, 1010, 10101, 101010, 1010101… As the sequence increases, the percentage of these numbers becomes smaller and smaller. But the sequence is infinite, so who knows what happens in the end? Perhaps blockmult(n) = 1 occurs infinitely often.

Magistra Rules the Waves

One of my favourite integer sequences has the simple formula n(i) = n(i-1) + digitsum(n(i-1)). If it’s seeded with 1, its first few terms go like this:

n(1) = 1
n(2) = n(1) + digitsum(n(1)) = 1 + digitsum(1) = 2
n(3) = 2 + digitsum(2) = 4
n(4) = 4 + digitsum(4) = 8
n(5) = 8 + digitsum(8) = 16
n(6) = 16 + digitsum(16) = 16 + 1+6 = 16 + 7 = 23
n(7) = 23 + digitsum(23) = 23 + 2+3 = 23 + 5 = 28
n(8) = 28 + digitsum(28) = 28 + 2+8 = 28 + 10 = 38

As a sequence, it looks like this:

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 23, 28, 38, 49, 62, 70, 77, 91, 101, 103, 107, 115, 122, 127, 137, 148, 161, 169, 185, 199, 218, 229, 242, 250, 257, 271, 281, 292, 305, 313, 320, 325, 335, 346, 359, 376, 392, 406, 416, 427, 440, 448, 464, 478, 497, 517, 530, 538, 554, 568, 587, 607, 620, 628, 644, 658, 677, 697, 719, 736, 752, 766, 785, 805, 818, 835, 851, 865, 884, 904, 917, 934, 950, 964, 983, 1003…

Given a number at random, is there a quick way to say whether it appears in the sequence seeded with 1? Not that I know, with one exception. If the number is divisible by 3, it doesn’t appear, at least in base 10. In base 2, that rule doesn’t apply:

n(1) = 1
n(2) = 1 + digitsum(1) = 10 = 1 + 1 = 2
n(3) = 10 + digitsum(10) = 10 + 1 = 11 = 2 + 1 = 3
n(4) = 11 + digitsum(11) = 11 + 1+1 = 101 = 3 + 2 = 5
n(5) = 101 + digitsum(101) = 101 + 1+0+1 = 111 = 5 + 2 = 7
n(6) = 111 + digitsum(111) = 111 + 11 = 1010 = 7 + 3 = 10
n(7) = 1010 + digitsum(1010) = 1010 + 10 = 1100 = 10 + 2 = 12
n(8) = 1100 + digitsum(1100) = 1100 + 10 = 1110 = 12 + 2 = 14

1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 36, 38, 41, 44, 47, 52, 55, 60, 64, 65, 67, 70, 73, 76, 79, 84, 87, 92, 96, 98, 101, 105, 109, 114, 118, 123, 129, 131, 134, 137, 140, 143, 148, 151, 156, 160, 162, 165, 169, 173, 178, 182, 187, 193, 196, 199, 204, 208, 211, 216, 220, 225, 229, 234, 239, 246, 252, 258, 260, 262, 265, 268, 271, 276, 279, 284, 288, 290, 293, 297, 301, 306, 310, 315, 321, 324, 327, 332, 336, 339, 344, 348, 353, 357, 362, 367, 374…

What patterns are there in these sequences? It’s easier to check when they’re represented graphically, so I converted them into patterns à la the Ulam spiral, where n is represented as a dot on a spiral of integers. This is the spiral for base 10:

ulambase10Base 10


And these are the spirals for bases 2 and 3:

ulambase2

Base 2


ulambase3

Base 3


These sequences look fairly random to me: there are no obvious patterns in the jumps from n(i) to n(i+1), i.e. in the values for digitsum(n(i)). Now try the spirals for bases 9 and 33:

ulambase9

Base 9


ulambase33

Base 33


Patterns have appeared: there is some regularity in the jumps. You can see these regularities more clearly if you represent digitsum(n(i)) as a graph, with n(i) on the x axis and digitsum(n(i)) on the y axis. If the graph starts with n(i) = 1 on the lower left and proceeds left-right, left-right up the screen, it looks like this in base 10:

base10

Base 10 (click to enlarge)


Here are bases 2 and 3:

base2

Base 2


base3

Base 3


The jumps seem fairly random. Now try bases 9, 13, 16, 17, 25, 33 and 49:

base9

Base 9


base13

Base 13


base16

Base 16


base17

Base 17


base25

Base 25


base33

Base 33


base49

Base 49


In some bases, the formula n(i) = n(i-1) + digitsum(n(i-1)) generates mild randomness. In others, it generates strong regularity, like waves rolling ashore under a steady wind. I don’t understand why, but regularity seems to occur in bases that are one more than a power of 2 and also in some bases that are primes or squares.


Elsewhere other-posted:

Mathematica Magistra Mundi
8200_idf_insignia

Summer Set Sequence

I wondered what would happen if you added to a set of numbers, (a, b, c), the first number that wasn’t equal to the sum of any subset of the numbers: a + b, a + c, c + b, a + b + c. If the set begins with 1, the first number not equal to any subset of (1) is 2. So the set becomes (1, 2). 3 = 1 + 2, so 3 is not added. But 4 is added, making the set (1, 2, 4). The sequence of additions goes like this:

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65536…

It’s the powers of 2, because some subset of the powers of 2 < 2^p will equal any number from 1 to (2^p)-1, therefore the first addition will be 2^p = the cumulative sum + 1:

1 (cumulative sum=1), 2 (cs=3), 4 (cs=7), 8 (cs=15), 16 (cs=31), 32 (cs=63), 64 (cs=127), 128 (cs=255), 256 (cs=511), 512 (cs=1023), 1024 (cs=2047), 2048 (cs=4095), 4096 (cs=8191), 8192 (cs=16383), 16384 (cs=32767), 32768 (cs=65535)…

If you seed the sequence with the set (2), the first addition is 3, but after that the powers of 2 re-appear:

2, 3, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65536…

It becomes more complicated if the sequence is seeded with the set (3):

3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 49, 50, 148, 149, 445, 446, 1336, 1337, 4009, 4010, 12028, 12029, 36085, 36086…

You can predict the pattern by looking at the cumulative sums again:

3, 4, 5, 6 (cumulative sum=18), 16, 17 (cs=51), 49, 50 (cs=150), 148, 149 (cs=447), 445, 446 (cs=1338), 1336, 1337 (cs=4011), 4009, 4010 (cs=12030), 12028, 12029 (cs=36087), 36085, 36086 (cs=108258)…

The sequence begins with a block of four consecutive numbers, followed by separate blocks of two consecutive numbers. The first number in each 2-block is predicted by the cumulative sum of the last number in the previous block, according to the formula n = cumulative sum – seed + 1. When the seed is 3, n = cs-3+1.

If the seed is 4, the sequences goes like this:

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 27, 28, 29, 111, 112, 113, 447, 448, 449, 1791, 1792, 1793, 7167, 7168, 7169…

Now the sequence begins with a block of five consecutive numbers, followed by separate blocks of three consecutive numbers. The formula is n = cs-4+1:

4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (cumulative sum=30), 27, 28, 29 (cs=114), 111, 112, 113 (cs=450), 447, 448, 449 (cs=1794), 1791, 1792, 1793 (cs=7170), 7167, 7168, 7169 (cs=28674)…

And here’s the sequence seeded with (5):

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 41, 42, 43, 44, 211, 212, 213, 214, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 5311, 5312, 5313, 5314…

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (cs=45), 41, 42, 43, 44 (cs=215), 211, 212, 213, 214 (cs=1065), 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064 (cs=5315), 5311, 5312, 5313, 5314 (cs=26565)…