isnt 1 also a solution? that would make it 1,3,9 so far which is 3^0, 3^1 and 3^2.....maybe 3^3 (=27) also works then?
432:27 = 16
324:27 = 12
243:27 = 9
621:27= 23
216:27= 8
162:27= 6
you meant it like that right?
for 3^4=81 i can find only pairs of two 3-digit-numbers though. i guess thats because 81 is a too large number compared to 3-digit numbers.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 37, 54, 74, 111, 148, 185, 222, 259, 296, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999
Next Problem!
Edit: The stipulation doesn't rule out the possibility that A=B=C and thus n=2 is a solution because it goes into 222 evenly, and switching digits has no effect.
Edit2: Even disallowing A=B=C still leaves n=2 as a solution, because it goes into 246, 462, and 624 evenly.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI believe the problem asks for numbers n such that if n is a factor of ABC then it will also be a factor of BCA and CAB.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 37, 54, 74, 111, 148, 185, 222, 259, 296, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999
Next Problem!
Edit: The stipulation doesn't rule out the possibility that A=B=C and thus n=2 is a solution because it goes into 222 evenly, and switching digits has no effect.
Edit2: Even disallowing A=B=C still leaves n=2 as a solution, because it goes into 246, 462, and 624 evenly.
The reason we can show that 3 satisfies this is because of the division check where if A+B+C = 3 or a number divisible by 3 then ABC is divisible by 3. The rearrangements have the same sum so this works. 9 works by the same principle. 1 works because it divides all numbers.
2 doesn't work. A counterexample is 136. 2 is a factor of this number but not 361 or 613.
EDIT: I'm writing some code that will find all such numbers however I need a clarification, what happens with numbers with a zero in them? In one rearrangement they will have a leading zero. Is this a problem?
Originally posted by XanthosNZI believe your interpretation of the stipulation is indeed what the original poster intended. Thanks for clearing that up.
I believe the problem asks for numbers n such that if n is a factor of ABC then it will also be a factor of BCA and CAB.
The reason we can show that 3 satisfies this is because of the division check where if A+B+C = 3 or a number divisible by 3 then ABC is divisible by 3. The rearrangements have the same sum so this works. 9 works by the same principle. rs with a zero in them? In one rearrangement they will have a leading zero. Is this a problem?
My new adjusted list is:
1, 3, 9, 27, 37, 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999
Edit: In my code, I ruled out any three digit numbers that included leading zeros.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem148 : 37 = 38
I believe your interpretation of the stipulation is indeed what the original poster intended. Thanks for clearing that up.
My new adjusted list is:
1, 3, 9, 27, 37, 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999
Edit: In my code, I ruled out any three digit numbers that included leading zeros.
Though 184 isn't a multiple of 37 (185 is).
Try harder Doggie 🙂
Originally posted by TheMaster37You have a minor problem. You did not change the position of the "1".
148 : 37 = 38
Though 184 isn't a multiple of 37 (185 is).
Try harder Doggie 🙂
Please remember, when dealing with me, you are no longer TheMaster, but the student. Call me 'doggie' one more time and I will crudely disembowel you before all the forum audience.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemMy bad BigProblem, I do apologise :p
You have a minor problem. You did not change the position of the "1".
Please remember, when dealing with me, you are no longer TheMaster, but the student. Call me 'doggie' one more time and I will crudely disembowel you before all the forum audience.
As long as my nickname is TheMaster, I will remain TheMaster. That nickname, however, in no way represents my level of expertise; I am entitled to my share of flaws and mistakes.
I do find it hilarious that you of all people would name anyone a student.
EDIT; Might be an idea to prove that your claim is correct. Are those the only numbers?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemcant wait to see that 😀
Please remember, when dealing with me, you are no longer TheMaster, but the student. Call me 'doggie' one more time and I will crudely disembowel you before all the forum audience.
So 1,3,9,27 fit into a system (3^x)...so do 111, 222 etc.....but what about 37? thats a funny number there, but it surely works also.