Talk:Kaprekar's routine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Repdigits?

Is it necessary to put the thing about repdigits because they would not fit step one? Scabrosus (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Has it been proven that no similar number exists in base 10 with 5+ digits. My current conjecture is that this is right. Georgia guy 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been proven that no similar number exists for 5-digit numbers. This link (the first link under External links section) discusses the result of Kaprekar's operation for 2-digit to 10-digit numbers. Gaurav1146 11:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that a number is referred to as an operation, so I changed it. --TruthfulCynic 03:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder at the veracity of the claim that this will work in at most 7 steps as my first test, 2112, took 10 steps (unless I screwed up).

2211 - 1122 = 1089
9810 - 0189 = 9621
9621 - 1269 = 8357
8753 - 3578 = 5175
7551 - 1557 = 5994
9954 - 4599 = 5355
5553 - 3555 = 1998
9981 - 1899 = 8082
8820 - 0288 = 8532
8532 - 2358 = 6174

198.183.217.192 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You screwed up on the third step. 9621-1269 is 8352 not 8357. After that it's just one more step- 8532-2358 = 6174. --Jdnx429 (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 198.183.217.192 (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, in one step:

9753 - 3579 = 6174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominytza (talk • contribs) 04:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not Sure about this Claim

3221-1223 = 1998

8991-1998 = 6993

6993-3996 = 2997

7992-2997 = 4995

5994-4995 = 0999

9990-0999 = 8991

and so on . . .207.172.86.77 (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)BE

The thing about mathematics is that a proved statement is no longer a "claim"; it's something known to be true. In this case, your very second step is wrong. If you start with 3221, what you get is:

3221 - 1223 = 1998

9981 - 1899 = 8082

8820 - 0288 = 8532

8532 - 2358 = 6174

Hope that helps, Shreevatsa (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)