# Summus

I’m interested in digit-sums and in palindromic numbers. Looking at one, I found the other. It started like this: 9^2 = 81 and 9 = 8 + 1, so digitsum(9^1) = digitsum(9^2). I wondered how long such a sequence of powers could be (excluding powers of 10). I quickly found that the digit-sum of 468 is equal to the digit-sum of its square and cube:

digsum(468) = digsum(219024) = digsum(102503232)

But I couldn’t find any longer sequence, although plenty of other numbers are similar to 468:

digsum(585) = digsum(342225) = digsum(200201625)
digsum(4680) = digsum(21902400) = digsum(102503232000)
digsum(5850) = digsum(34222500) = digsum(200201625000)
digsum(5851) = digsum(34234201) = digsum(200304310051)
digsum(5868) = digsum(34433424) = digsum(202055332032)
digsum(28845) = digsum(832034025) = digsum(24000021451125) […]
digsum(589680) = digsum(347722502400) = digsum(205045005215232000)

What about other bases? First came this sequence:

digsum(2) = digsum(11) (base = 3) (highest power = 2)

Then these:

digsum(4) = digsum(22) = digsum(121) (b=7) (highest power = 3)
digsum(8) = digsum(44) = digsum(242) = digsum(1331) (b=15) (hp=4)
digsum([16]) = digsum(88) = digsum(484) = digsum(2662) = digsum(14641) (b=31) (hp=5)

The pattern continues (a number between square brackets represents a single digit in the base):

digsum([32]) = digsum([16][16]) = digsum(8[16]8) = digsum(4[12][12]4) = digsum(28[12]82) = digsum(15[10][10]51) (b=63) (hp=6)
digsum([64]) = digsum([32][32]) = digsum([16][32][16]) = digsum(8[24][24]8) = digsum(4[16][24][16]4) = digsum(2[10][20][20][10]2) = digsum(16[15][20][15]61) (b=127) (hp=7)
digsum([128]) = digsum([64][64]) = digsum([32][64][32]) = digsum([16][48][48][16]) = digsum(8[32][48][32]8) = digsum(4[20][40][40][20]4) = digsum(2[12][30][40][30][12]2) = digsum(17[21][35][35][21]71) (b=255) (hp=8)
digsum([256]) = digsum([128][128]) = digsum([64][128][64]) = digsum([32][96][96][32]) = digsum([16][64][96][64][16]) = digsum(8[40][80][80][40]8) = digsum(4[24][60][80][60][24]4) = digsum(2[14][42][70][70][42][14]2) = digsum(18[28][56][70][56][28]81) (b=511) (hp=9)

After this, I looked at sequences in which n(i) = n(i-1) + digitsum(n(i-1)). How long could digitsum(n(i)) be greater than or equal to digitsum(n(i-1))? In base 10, I found these sequences:

1 (digitsum=1) → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 (sum=7) (count=4) (base=10)
9 → 18 (sum=9) → 27 (s=9) → 36 (s=9) → 45 (s=9) → 54 (s=9) → 63 (s=9) → 72 (s=9) → 81 (s=9) → 90 (s=9) → 99 (s=18) → 117 (s=9) (c=11) (b=10)
801 (s=9) → 810 (s=9) → 819 (s=18) → 837 (s=18) → 855 (s=18) → 873 (s=18) → 891 (s=18) → 909 (s=18) → 927 (s=18) → 945 (s=18) → 963 (s=18) → 981 (s=18) → 999 (s=27) → 1026 (s=9) (c=13)

Base 2 does better:

1 → 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 101 (s=2) → 111 (s=3) → 1010 (s=2) (c=5) (b=2)
16 = 10000 (s=1) → 10001 (s=2) → 10011 (s=3) → 10110 (s=3) → 11001 (s=3) → 11100 (s=3) → 11111 (s=5) → 100100 (s=2) (c=7) (b=2)
962 = 1111000010 (s=5) → 1111000111 (s=7) → 1111001110 (s=7) → 1111010101 (s=7) → 1111011100 (s=7) → 1111100011 (s=7) → 1111101010 (s=7) → 1111110001 (s=7) → 1111111000 (s=7) → 1111111111 (s=10) → 10000001001 (s=3) (c=10) (b=2)
524047 = 1111111111100001111 (s=15) → 1111111111100011110 (s=15) → 1111111111100101101 (s=15) → 1111111111100111100 (s=15) → 1111111111101001011 (s=15) → 1111111111101011010 (s=15) → 1111111111101101001(s=15) → 1111111111101111000 (s=15) → 1111111111110000111 (s=15) → 1111111111110010110 (s=15) → 1111111111110100101 (s=15) → 1111111111110110100 (s=15) → 1111111111111000011 (s=15) → 1111111111111010010 (s=15) → 1111111111111100001 (s=15) → 1111111111111110000 (s=15) → 1111111111111111111 (s=19) → 10000000000000010010 (s=3) (c=17) (b=2)

The best sequence I found in base 3 is shorter than in base 10, but there are more sequences:

1 → 2 → 11 (s=2) → 20 (s=2) → 22 (s=4) → 110 (s=2) (c=5) (b=3)
31 = 1011 (s=3) → 1021 (s=4) → 1102 (s=4) → 1120 (s=4) → 1201 (s=4) → 1212 (s=6) → 2002 (s=4) (c=6) (b=3)
54 = 2000 (s=2) → 2002 (s=4) → 2020 (s=4) → 2101 (s=4) → 2112 (s=6) → 2202 (s=6) → 2222 (s=8) → 10021(s=4) (c=7) (b=3)
432 = 121000 (s=4) → 121011 (s=6) → 121101 (s=6) → 121121 (s=8) → 121220 (s=8) → 122012 (s=8) → 122111 (s=8) → 122210 (s=8) → 200002 (s=4) (c=8) (b=3)
648 = 220000 (s=4) → 220011 (s=6) → 220101 (s=6) → 220121 (s=8) → 220220 (s=8) → 221012 (s=8) → 221111 (s=8) → 221210 (s=8) → 222002 (s=8) → 222101 (s=8) → 222200 (s=8) → 222222 (s=12) → 1000102 (s=4) (c=12) (b=3)

And what about sequences in which digitsum(n(i)) is always greater than digitsum(n(i-1))? Base 10 is disappointing:

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 (sum=7) (count=4) (base=10)
50 (s=5) → 55 (s=10) → 65 (s=11) → 76 (s=13) → 89 (s=17) → 106 (s=7) (c=5) (b=10)

Some other bases do better:

2 = 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 101 (s=2) (c=2) (b=2)
4 = 100 (s=1) → 101 (s=2) → 111 (s=3) → 1010 (s=2) (c=3) (b=2)
240 = 11110000 (s=4) → 11110100 (s=5) → 11111001 (s=6) → 11111111 (s=8) → 100000111 (s=4) (c=4) (b=2)

1 → 2 → 11 (s=2) (c=2) (b=3)
19 = 201 (s=3) → 211 (s=4) → 222 (s=6) → 1012 (s=4) (c=3) (b=3)
58999 = 2222221011 (s=15) → 2222221201 (s=16) → 2222222022 (s=18) → 2222222222 (s=20) → 10000000201 (s=4) (c=4) (b=3)

1 → 2 → 10 (s=1) (c=2) (b=4)
4 = 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 13 (s=4) → 23 (s=5) → 100 (s=1) (c=4) (b=4)
977 = 33101 (s=8) → 33121 (s=10) → 33203 (s=11) → 33232 (s=13) → 33323 (s=14) → 100021 (s=4) (c=5) (b=4)

1 → 2 → 4 → 13 (s=4) (c=3) (b=5)
105 = 410 (s=5) → 420 (s=6) → 431 (s=8) → 444 (s=12) → 1021 (s=4) (c=4) (b=5)

1 → 2 → 4 → 12 (s=3) (c=3) (b=6)
13 = 21 (s=3) → 24 (s=6) → 34 (s=7) → 45 (s=9) → 102 (s=3) (c=4) (b=6)
396 = 1500 (s=6) → 1510 (s=7) → 1521 (s=9) → 1534 (s=13) → 1555 (s=16) → 2023 (s=7) (c=5) (b=6)

1 → 2 → 4 → 11 (s=2) (c=3) (b=7)
121 = 232 (s=7) → 242 (s=8) → 253 (s=10) → 266 (s=14) → 316 (s=10) (c=4) (b=7)
205 = 412 (s=7) → 422 (s=8) → 433 (s=10) → 446 (s=14) → 466 (s=16) → 521 (s=8) (c=5) (b=7)

1 → 2 → 4 → 10 (s=1) (c=3) (b=8)
8 = 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 13 (s=4) → 17 (s=8) → 27 (s=9) → 40 (s=4) (c=5) (b=8)
323 = 503 (s=8) → 513 (s=9) → 524 (s=11) → 537 (s=15) → 556 (s=16) → 576 (s=18) → 620 (s=8) (c=6) (b=8)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 17 (s=8) (c=4) (b=9)
6481 = 8801 (s=17) → 8820 (s=18) → 8840 (s=20) → 8862 (s=24) → 8888 (s=32) → 10034 (s=8) (c=5) (b=9)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 (s=7) (c=4) (b=10)
50 (s=5) → 55 (s=10) → 65 (s=11) → 76 (s=13) → 89 (s=17) → 106 (s=7) (c=5) (b=10)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 15 (s=6) (c=4) (b=11)
1013 = 841 (s=13) → 853 (s=16) → 868 (s=22) → 888 (s=24) → 8[10][10] (s=28) → 925 (s=16) (c=5) (b=11)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 14 (s=5) (c=4) (b=12)
25 = 21 (s=3) → 24 (s=6) → 2[10] (s=12) → 3[10] (s=13) → 4[11] (s=15) → 62 (s=8) (c=5) (b=12)
1191 = 833 (s=14) → 845 (s=17) → 85[10] (s=23) → 879 (s=24) → 899 (s=26) → 8[11][11] (s=30) → 925 (s=16) (c=6) (b=12)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 13 (s=4) (c=4) (b=13)
781 = 481 (s=13) → 491 (s=14) → 4[10]2 (s=16) → 4[11]5 (s=20) → 4[12][12] (s=28) → 521 (s=8) (c=5) (b=13)
19621 = 8[12]14 (s=25) → 8[12]33 (s=26) → 8[12]53 (s=28) → 8[12]75 (s=32) → 8[12]9[11] (s=40) → 8[12][12][12] (s=44) → 9034 (s=16) (c=6) (b=13)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 12 (s=3) (c=4) (b=14)
72 = 52 (s=7) → 59 (s=14) → 69 (s=15) → 7[10] (s=17) → 8[13] (s=21) → [10]6 (s=16) (c=5) (b=14)
1275 = 671 (s=14) → 681 (s=15) → 692 (s=17) → 6[10]5 (s=21) → 6[11][12] (s=29) → 6[13][13] (s=32) → 723 (s=12) (c=6) (b=14)
19026 = 6[13]10 (s=20) → 6[13]26 (s=27) → 6[13]45 (s=28) → 6[13]65 (s=30) → 6[13]87 (s=34) → 6[13][10][13] (s=42) → 6[13][13][13] (s=45) → 7032 (s=12) (c=7) (b=14)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 11 (s=2) (c=4) (b=15)
603 = 2[10]3 (s=15) → 2[11]3 (s=16) → 2[12]4 (s=18) → 2[13]7 (s=22) → 2[14][14] (s=30) → 31[14] (s=18) (c=5) (b=15)
1023 = 483 (s=15) → 493 (s=16) → 4[10]4 (s=18) → 4[11]7 (s=22) → 4[12][14] (s=30) → 4[14][14] (s=32) → 521 (s=8) (c=6) (b=15)
1891 = 861 (s=15) → 871 (s=16) → 882 (s=18) → 895 (s=22) → 8[10][12] (s=30) → 8[12][12] (s=32) → 8[14][14] (s=36) → 925 (s=16) (c=7) (b=15)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 10 (s=1) (c=4) (b=16)
16 = 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 13 (s=4) → 17 (s=8) → 1[15] (s=16) → 2[15] (s=17) → 40 (s=4) (c=6) (b=16)
1396 = 574 (s=16) → 584 (s=17) → 595 (s=19) → 5[10]8 (s=23) → 5[11][15] (s=31) → 5[13][14] (s=32) → 5[15][14] (s=34) → 620 (s=8) (c=7) (b=16)
2131 = 853 (s=16) → 863 (s=17) → 874 (s=19) → 887 (s=23) → 89[14] (s=31) → 8[11][13] (s=32) → 8[13][13] (s=34) → 8[15][15] (s=38) → 925 (s=16) (c=8) (b=16)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] (s=16) → 1[15] (s=16) (c=5) (b=17)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] (s=16) → 1[14] (s=15) (c=5) (b=18)
5330 = [16]82 (s=26) → [16]9[10] (s=35) → [16][11]9 (s=36) → [16][13]9 (s=38) → [16][15][11] (s=42) → [16][17][17] (s=50) → [17]2[13] (s=32) (c=6) (b=18)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] (s=16) → 1[13] (s=14) (c=5) (b=19)
116339 = [16][18]52 (s=41) → [16][18]75 (s=46) → [16][18]9[13] (s=56) → [16][18][12][12] (s=58) → [16][18][15][13] (s=62) → [16][18][18][18] (s=70) → [17]03[12] (s=32) (c=6) (b=19)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] (s=16) → 1[12] (s=13) (c=5) (b=20)
100 = 50 (s=5) → 55 (s=10) → 5[15] (s=20) → 6[15] (s=21) → 7[16] (s=23) → 8[19] (s=27) → [10]6 (s=16) (c=6) (b=20)
135665 = [16][19]35 (s=43) → [16][19]58 (s=48) → [16][19]7[16] (s=58) → [16][19][10][14] (s=59) → [16][19][13][13] (s=61) → [16][19][16][14] (s=65) → [16][19][19][19] (s=73) → [17]03[12] (s=32) (c=7) (b=20)

# Factory Records

The factors of n are those numbers that divide n without remainder. So the factors of 6 are 1, 2, 3 and 6. If the function s(n) is defined as “the sum of the factors of n, excluding n, then s(6) = 1 + 2 + 3 = 6. This makes 6 a perfect number: its factors re-create it. 28 is another perfect number. The factors of 28 are 1, 2, 4, 7, 14 and 28, so s(28) = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 = 28. Other perfect numbers are 496 and 8128. And they’re perfect in any base.

Amicable numbers are amicable in any base too. The factors of an amicable number sum to a second number whose factors sum to the first number. So s(220) = 284, s(284) = 220. That pair may have been known to Pythagoras (c.570-c.495 BC), but s(1184) = 1210, s(1210) = 1184 was discovered by an Italian schoolboy called Nicolò Paganini in 1866. There are also sociable chains, in which s(n), s(s(n)), s(s(s(n))) create a chain of numbers that leads back to n, like this:

12496 → 14288 → 15472 → 14536 → 14264 → 12496 (c=5)

Or this:

14316 → 19116 → 31704 → 47616 → 83328 → 177792 → 295488 → 629072 → 589786 → 294896 → 358336 → 418904 → 366556 → 274924 → 275444 → 243760 → 376736 → 381028 → 285778 → 152990 → 122410 → 97946 → 48976 → 45946 → 22976 → 22744 → 19916 → 17716 → 14316 (c=28)

Those sociable chains were discovered (and christened) in 1918 by the Belgian mathematician Paul Poulet (1887-1946). Other factor-sum patterns are dependant on the base they’re expressed in. For example, s(333) = 161. So both n and s(n) are palindromes in base-10. Here are more examples — the numbers in brackets are the prime factors of n and s(n):

333 (3^2, 37) → 161 (7, 23)
646 (2, 17, 19) → 434 (2, 7, 31)
656 (2^4, 41) → 646 (2, 17, 19)
979 (11, 89) → 101 (prime)
1001 (7, 11, 13) → 343 (7^3)
3553 (11, 17, 19) → 767 (13, 59)
10801 (7, 1543) → 1551 (3, 11, 47)
11111 (41, 271) → 313 (prime)
18581 (17, 1093) → 1111 (11, 101)
31713 (3, 11, 31^2) → 15951 (3, 13, 409)
34943 (83, 421) → 505 (5, 101)
48484 (2^2, 17, 23, 31) → 48284 (2^2, 12071)
57375 (3^3, 5^3, 17) → 54945 (3^3, 5, 11, 37)
95259 (3, 113, 281) → 33333 (3, 41, 271)
99099 (3^2, 7, 11^2, 13) → 94549 (7, 13, 1039)
158851 (7, 11, 2063) → 39293 (prime)
262262 (2, 7, 11, 13, 131) → 269962 (2, 7, 11, 1753)
569965 (5, 11, 43, 241) → 196691 (11, 17881)
1173711 (3, 7, 11, 5081) → 777777 (3, 7^2, 11, 13, 37)

Note how s(656) = 646 and s(646) = 434. There’s an even longer sequence in base-495:

33 → 55 → 77 → 99 → [17][17] → [19][19] → [21][21] → [43][43] → [45][45] → [111][111] → [193][193] → [195][195] → [477][477] (b=495) (c=13)
1488 (2^4, 3, 31) → 2480 (2^4, 5, 31) → 3472 (2^4, 7, 31) → 4464 (2^4, 3^2, 31) → 8432 (2^4, 17, 31) → 9424 (2^4, 19, 31) → 10416 (2^4, 3, 7, 31) → 21328 (2^4, 31, 43) → 22320 (2^4, 3^2, 5, 31) → 55056 (2^4, 3, 31, 37) → 95728 (2^4, 31, 193) → 96720 (2^4, 3, 5, 13, 31) → 236592 (2^4, 3^2, 31, 53)

I also tried looking for n whose s(n) mirrors n. But they’re hard to find in base-10. The first example is this:

498906 (2, 3^3, 9239) → 609894 (2, 3^2, 31, 1093)

498906 mirrors 609894, because the digits of each run in reverse to the digits of the other. Base-9 does better for mirror-sums, clocking up four in the same range of integers:

42 → 24 (base=9)
38 (2, 19) → 22 (2, 11)
402 → 204 (base=9)
326 (2, 163) → 166 (2, 83)
4002 → 2004 (base=9)
2918 (2, 1459) → 1462 (2, 17, 43)
5544 → 4455 (base=9)
4090 (2, 5, 409) → 3290 (2, 5, 7, 47)

Base-11 does better still, clocking up eight in the same range:

42 → 24 (base=11)
46 (2, 23) → 26 (2, 13)
2927 → 7292 (base=11)
3780 (2^2, 3^3, 5, 7) → 9660 (2^2, 3, 5, 7, 23)
4002 → 2004 (base=11)
5326 (2, 2663) → 2666 (2, 31, 43)
13772 → 27731 (base=11)
19560 (2^3, 3, 5, 163) → 39480 (2^3, 3, 5, 7, 47)
4[10]7[10]9 → 9[10]7[10]4 (base=11)
72840 (2^3, 3, 5, 607) → 146040 (2^3, 3, 5, 1217)
6929[10] → [10]9296 (base=11)
100176 (2^4, 3, 2087) → 158736 (2^4, 3, 3307)
171623 → 326171 (base=11)
265620 (2^2, 3, 5, 19, 233) → 520620 (2^2, 3, 5, 8677)
263702 → 207362 (base=11)
414790 (2, 5, 41479) → 331850 (2, 5^2, 6637)

Note that 42 mirrors its factor-sum in both base-9 and base-11. But s(42) = 24 in infinitely many bases, because when 42 = 2 x prime, s(42) = 1 + 2 + prime. So (prime-1) / 2 will give the base in which 24 = s(42). For example, 2 x 11 = 22 and 22 = 42 in base (11-1) / 2 or base-5. So s(42) = 1 + 2 + 11 = 14 = 2 x 5 + 4 = 24[b=5]. There are infinitely many primes, so infinitely many bases in which s(42) = 24.

Base-10 does better for mirror-sums when s(n) is re-defined to include n itself. So s(69) = 1 + 3 + 23 + 69 = 96. Here are the first examples of all-factor mirror-sums in base-10:

69 (3, 23) → 96 (2^5, 3)
276 (2^2, 3, 23) → 672 (2^5, 3, 7)
639 (3^2, 71) → 936 (2^3, 3^2, 13)
2556 (2^2, 3^2, 71) → 6552 (2^3, 3^2, 7, 13)

In the same range, base-9 now produces one mirror-sum, 13 → 31 = 12 (2^2, 3) → 28 (2^2, 7). Base-11 produces no mirror-sums in the same range. Base behaviour is eccentric, but that’s what makes it interesting.

# Clock around the Rock

If you like minimalism, you should like binary. There is unsurpassable simplicity and elegance in the idea that any number can be reduced to a series of 1’s and 0’s. It’s unsurpassable because you can’t get any simpler: unless you use finger-counting, two symbols are the minimum possible. But with those two – a stark 1 and 0, true and false, yin and yang, sun and moon, black and white – you can conquer any number you please. 2 = 10[2]. 5 = 101. 100 = 1100100. 666 = 1010011010. 2013 = 11111011101. 9^9 = 387420489 = 10111000101111001000101001001. You can also perform any mathematics you please, from counting sheep to modelling the evolution of the universe.

1 + 0 = ∞

But one disadvantage of binary, from the human point of view, is that numbers get long quickly: every doubling in size adds an extra digit. You can overcome that disadvantage using octal or hexadecimal, which compress blocks of binary into single digits, but those number systems need more symbols: eight and sixteen, as their names suggest. There’s an elegance there too, but binary goes masked, hiding its minimalist appeal beneath apparent complexity. It doesn’t need to wear a mask for computers, but human beings can appreciate bare binary too, even with our weak memories and easily tiring nervous systems. I especially like minimalist binary when it’s put to work on those most maximalist of numbers: the primes. You can compare integers, or whole numbers, to minerals. Some are like mica or shale, breaking readily into smaller parts, but primes are like granite or some other ultra-hard, resistant rock. In other words, some integers are easy to divide by other integers and some, like the primes, are not. Compare 256 with 257. 256 = 2^8, so it’s divisible by 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2 and 1. 257 is a prime, so it’s divisible by nothing but itself and 1. Powers of two are easy to calculate and, in binary, very easy to represent:

2^0 = 1 = 1
2^1 = 2 = 10[2]
2^2 = 4 = 100
2^3 = 8 = 1000
2^4 = 16 = 10000
2^5 = 32 = 100000
2^6 = 64 = 1000000
2^7 = 128 = 10000000
2^8 = 256 = 100000000

Primes are the opposite: hard to calculate and usually hard to represent, whatever the base:

02 = 000010[2]
03 = 000011
05 = 000101
07 = 000111
11 = 001011
13 = 001101
17 = 010001
19 = 010011
23 = 010111
29 = 011101
31 = 011111
37 = 100101
41 = 101001
43 = 101011

Maximalist numbers, minimalist base: it’s a potent combination. But “brimes”, or binary primes, nearly all have one thing in common. Apart from 2, a special case, each brime must begin and end with 1. For the digits in-between, the God of Mathematics seems to be tossing a coin, putting 1 for heads, 0 for tails. But sometimes the coin will come up all heads or all tails: 127 = 1111111[2] and 257 = 100000001, for example. Brimes like that have a stark simplicity amid the jumble of 83 = 1010011[2], 113 = 1110001, 239 = 11101111, 251 = 11111011, 277 = 100010101, and so on. Brimes like 127 and 257 are also palindromes, or the same reading in both directions. But less simple brimes can be palindromes too:

73 = 1001001
107 = 1101011
313 = 100111001
443 = 110111011
1193 = 10010101001
1453 = 10110101101
1571 = 11000100011
1619 = 11001010011
1787 = 11011111011
1831 = 11100100111
1879 = 11101010111

But, whether they’re palindromes or not, all brimes except 2 begin and end with 1, so they can be represented as rings, like this:

Those twelve bits, or binary digits, actually represent the thirteen bits of 5227 = 1,010,001,101,011. Start at twelve o’clock (digit 1 of the prime) and count clockwise, adding 1’s and 0’s till you reach 12 o’clock again and add the final 1. Then you’ve clocked around the rock and created the granite of 5227, which can’t be divided by any integers but itself and 1. Another way to see the brime-ring is as an Ouroboros (pronounced “or-ROB-or-us”), a serpent or dragon biting its own tail, like this:

Alchemical Ouroboros (1478)

Another alchemical Ouroboros (1599)

But you don’t have to start clocking around the rock at midday or midnight. Take the Ouroboprime of 5227 and start at eleven o’clock (digit 12 of the prime), adding 1’s and 0’s as you move clockwise. When you’ve clocked around the rock, you’ll have created the granite of 6709, another prime:

Other Ouroboprimes produce brimes both clockwise and anti-clockwise, like 47 = 101,111.

Clockwise

101,111 = 47
111,011 = 59
111,101 = 61

Anti-Clockwise

111,101 = 61
111,011 = 59
101,111 = 47

If you demand the clock-rocked brime produce distinct primes, you sometimes get more in one direction than the other. Here is 151 = 10,010,111:

Clockwise

10,010,111 = 151
11,100,101 = 229

Anti-Clockwise

11,101,001 = 233
11,010,011 = 211
10,100,111 = 167
10,011,101 = 157

The most productive brime I’ve discovered so far is 2,326,439 = 1,000,110,111,111,110,100,111[2], which produces fifteen distinct primes:

Clockwise (7 brimes)

1,000,110,111,111,110,100,111 = 2326439
1,100,011,011,111,111,010,011 = 3260371
1,110,100,111,000,110,111,111 = 3830207
1,111,101,001,110,001,101,111 = 4103279
1,111,110,100,111,000,110,111 = 4148791
1,111,111,010,011,100,011,011 = 4171547
1,101,111,111,101,001,110,001 = 3668593

Anti-Clockwise (8 brimes)

1,110,010,111,111,110,110,001 = 3768241
1,100,101,111,111,101,100,011 = 3342179
1,111,111,011,000,111,001,011 = 4174283
1,111,110,110,001,110,010,111 = 4154263
1,111,101,100,011,100,101,111 = 4114223
1,111,011,000,111,001,011,111 = 4034143
1,110,110,001,110,010,111,111 = 3873983
1,000,111,001,011,111,111,011 = 2332667

Appendix: Deciminimalist Primes

Some primes in base ten use only the two most basic symbols too. That is, primes like 11[10], 101[10], 10111[10] and 1011001[10] are composed of only 1’s and 0’s. Furthermore, when these numbers are read as binary instead, they are still prime: 11[2] = 3, 101[2] = 5, 10111[2] = 23 and 1011001[2] = 89. Here is an incomplete list of these deciminimalist primes:

11[10] = 1,011[2]; 11[2] = 3[10] is also prime.

101[10] = 1,100,101[2]; 101[2] = 5[10] is also prime.

10,111[10] = 10,011,101,111,111[2]; 10,111[2] = 23[10] is also prime.

101,111[10] = 11,000,101,011,110,111[2]; 101,111[2] = 47[10] is also prime.

1,011,001[10] = 11,110,110,110,100,111,001[2]; 1,011,001[2] = 89[10] is also prime.

1,100,101[10] = 100,001,100,100,101,000,101[2]; 1,100,101[2] = 101[10] is also prime.

10,010,101[10] = 100,110,001,011,110,111,110,101[2]; 10,010,101[2] = 149[10] is also prime.

10,011,101[10] = 100,110,001,100,000,111,011,101[2]; 10,011,101[2] = 157[10] is also prime.

10,100,011[10] = 100,110,100,001,110,100,101,011[2]; 10,100,011[2] = 163[10] is also prime.

10,101,101[10] = 100,110,100,010,000,101,101,101[2]; 10,101,101[2] = 173[10] is also prime.

10,110,011[10] = 100,110,100,100,010,000,111,011[2]; 10,110,011[2] = 179[10] is also prime.

10,111,001[10] = 100,110,100,100,100,000,011,001[2].

11,000,111[10] = 101,001,111,101,100,100,101,111[2]; 11,000,111[2] = 199[10] is also prime.

11,100,101[10] = 101,010,010,101,111,111,000,101[2]; 11,100,101[2] = 229[10] is also prime.

11,110,111[10] = 101,010,011,000,011,011,011,111[2].

11,111,101[10] = 101,010,011,000,101,010,111,101[2].

100,011,001[10] = 101,111,101,100,000,101,111,111,001[2]; 100,011,001[2] = 281[10] is also prime.

100,100,111[10] = 101,111,101,110,110,100,000,001,111[2].

100,111,001[10] = 101,111,101,111,001,001,010,011,001[2]; 100,111,001[2] = 313[10] is also prime.

101,001,001[10] = 110,000,001,010,010,011,100,101,001[2].

101,001,011[10] = 110,000,001,010,010,011,100,110,011[2]; 101,001,011[2] = 331[10] is also prime.

101,001,101[10] = 110,000,001,010,010,011,110,001,101[2].

101,100,011[10] = 110,000,001,101,010,100,111,101,011[2].

101,101,001[10] = 110,000,001,101,010,110,111,001,001[2].

101,101,111[10] = 110,000,001,101,010,111,000,110,111[2]; 101,101,111[2] = 367[10] is also prime.

101,110,111[10] = 110,000,001,101,101,000,101,011,111[2].

101,111,011[10] = 110,000,001,101,101,010,011,100,011[2]; 101,111,011[2] = 379[10] is also prime.

101,111,111[10] = 110,000,001,101,101,010,101,000,111[2]; 101,111,111[2] = 383[10] is also prime.

110,010,101[10] = 110,100,011,101,001,111,011,110,101[2].

110,100,101[10] = 110,100,011,111,111,111,010,000,101[2]; 110,100,101[2] = 421[10] is also prime.

110,101,001[10] = 110,100,100,000,000,001,000,001,001[2].

110,110,001[10] = 110,100,100,000,010,010,100,110,001[2]; 110,110,001[2] = 433[10] is also prime.

110,111,011[10] = 110,100,100,000,010,100,100,100,011[2]; 110,111,011[2] = 443[10] is also prime.

# Summer-Climb Views

Simple things can sometimes baffle advanced minds. If you take a number, reverse its digits, add the result to the original number, then repeat all that, will you eventually get a palindrome? (I.e., a number, like 343 or 27172, that reads the same in both directions.) Many numbers do seem to produce palindromes sooner or later. Here are 195 and 197:

195 + 591 = 786 + 687 = 1473 + 3741 = 5214 + 4125 = 9339 (4 steps)

197 + 791 = 988 + 889 = 1877 + 7781 = 9658 + 8569 = 18227 + 72281 = 90508 + 80509 = 171017 + 710171 = 881188 (7 steps)

But what about 196? Well, it starts like this:

196 + 691 = 887 + 788 = 1675 + 5761 = 7436 + 6347 = 13783 + 38731 = 52514 + 41525 = 94039 + 93049 = 187088 + 880781 = 1067869 + 9687601 = 10755470 + 7455701 = 18211171 + 17111281 = 35322452 + 25422353 = 60744805 + 50844706 = 111589511 + 115985111 = 227574622 + 226475722 = 454050344 + 443050454 = 897100798 + 897001798 = 1794102596 + 6952014971 = 8746117567 + 7657116478 = 16403234045 + 54043230461 = 70446464506 + 60546464407 = 130992928913 + 319829299031 = 450822227944 + 449722228054 = 900544455998…

And so far, after literally years of computing by mathematicians, it hasn’t produced a palindrome. It seems very unlikely it ever will, but no-one can prove this and say that 196 is, in base 10, a Lychrel number, or a number that never produces a palindrome. In other words, a simple thing has baffled advanced minds.

I don’t know whether it can baffle advanced minds, but here’s another simple mathematical technique: sum all the digits of a number, then add the result to the original number and repeat. How long before a palindrome appears in this case? Sum it and see:

10 + 1 = 11

12 + 3 = 15 + 6 = 21 + 3 = 24 + 6 = 30 + 3 = 33 (5 steps)

13 + 4 = 17 + 8 = 25 + 7 = 32 + 5 = 37 + 10 = 47 + 11 = 58 + 13 = 71 + 8 = 79 + 16 = 95 + 14 = 109 + 10 = 119 + 11 = 130 + 4 = 134 + 8 = 142 + 7 = 149 + 14 = 163 + 10 = 173 + 11 = 184 + 13 = 197 + 17 = 214 + 7 = 221 + 5 = 226 + 10 = 236 + 11 = 247 + 13 = 260 + 8 = 268 + 16 = 284 + 14 = 298 + 19 = 317 + 11 = 328 + 13 = 341 + 8 = 349 + 16 = 365 + 14 = 379 + 19 = 398 + 20 = 418 + 13 = 431 + 8 = 439 + 16 = 455 + 14 = 469 + 19 = 488 + 20 = 508 + 13 = 521 + 8 = 529 + 16 = 545 (45 steps)

14 + 5 = 19 + 10 = 29 + 11 = 40 + 4 = 44 (4 steps)

15 + 6 = 21 + 3 = 24 + 6 = 30 + 3 = 33 (4 steps)

16 + 7 = 23 + 5 = 28 + 10 = 38 + 11 = 49 + 13 = 62 + 8 = 70 + 7 = 77 (7 steps)

17 + 8 = 25 + 7 = 32 + 5 = 37 + 10 = 47 + 11 = 58 + 13 = 71 + 8 = 79 + 16 = 95 + 14 = 109 + 10 = 119 + 11 = 130 + 4 = 134 + 8 = 142 + 7 = 149 + 14 = 163 + 10 = 173 + 11 = 184 + 13 = 197 + 17 = 214 + 7 = 221 + 5 = 226 + 10 = 236 + 11 = 247 + 13 = 260 + 8 = 268 + 16 = 284 + 14 = 298 + 19 = 317 + 11 = 328 + 13 = 341 + 8 = 349 + 16 = 365 + 14 = 379 + 19 = 398 + 20 = 418 + 13 = 431 + 8 = 439 + 16 = 455 + 14 = 469 + 19 = 488 + 20 = 508 + 13 = 521 + 8 = 529 + 16 = 545 (44 steps)

18 + 9 = 27 + 9 = 36 + 9 = 45 + 9 = 54 + 9 = 63 + 9 = 72 + 9 = 81 + 9 = 90 + 9 = 99 (9 steps)

19 + 10 = 29 + 11 = 40 + 4 = 44 (3 steps)

20 + 2 = 22

I haven’t looked very thoroughly at this technique, so I don’t know whether it throws up a seemingly unpalindromizable number. If it does, I don’t have an advanced mind, so I won’t be able to prove that it is unpalindromizable. But an adaptation of the technique produces something interesting when it is represented on a graph. This time, if s > 9, where s = digit-sum(n), let s = digit-sum(s) until s <= 9 (i.e, s < 10, the base). I call this the condensed digit-sum:

140 + 5 = 145 + 1 = 146 + 2 = 148 + 4 = 152 + 8 = 160 + 7 = 167 + 5 = 172 + 1 = 173 + 2 = 175 + 4 = 179 + 8 = 187 + 7 = 194 + 5 = 199 + 1 = 200 + 2 = 202 (15 steps)

Here, for comparison, is the sequence for 140 using uncondensed digit-sums:

140 + 5 = 145 + 10 = 155 + 11 = 166 + 13 = 179 + 17 = 196 + 16 = 212 (6 steps)

When all the numbers (including palindromes) created using condensed digit-sums are shown on a graph, they create an interesting pattern in base 10 (the x-axis represents n, the y-axis represents n, n1 = n + digit-sum(n), n2 = n1 + digit-sum(n1), etc):

(Please open images in a new window if they fail to animate.)

And here, for comparison, are the patterns created by uncondensed digit-sums in base 2 to 10: