Showing posts with label modulus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label modulus. Show all posts

Tuesday, 27 October 2026

Parasitic Numbers

My inbox contained the following content from Puzzle A Day:

The number 105263157894736842 is fascinating. This is because it’s the smallest positive integer with a remarkable property that occurs when you move its final digit to the front: 210526315789473684. How is the new number related to the original?

It doesn't take long to see the new number is twice the original. I got Gemini to investigate further via this query:

The number 105263157894736842 is the smallest positive integer with a remarkable property that it doubles when you move its final digit to the front: 210526315789473684. This is quite a large number. Why are there no smaller numbers with this property? What is the next largest number? Is there any history behind the discovery of such numbers? There must be somebody who first discovered it.

Here was Gemini's response:

Numbers that multiply by an integer \(k\) when their trailing digit is shifted to the front are known in recreational number theory as \(k\)-parasitic numbers—and the smallest solutions for each multiplier are specifically called Dyson numbers. The 18-digit integer \(105{,}263{,}157{,}894{,}736{,}842\) is the smallest 2-parasitic number in base 10.

1. Why There Are No Smaller Solutions

To see why 18 digits is the absolute minimum, we can translate the digit-shifting operation into a modular congruence.

Suppose an \(m\)-digit number \(X\) ends with the units digit \(d\) (where \(1 \le d \le 9\)), and the remaining \(m-1\) leading digits form the number \(A\). We can express \(X\) as:\[X = 10A + d\]Moving the final digit \(d\) to the front of the \(m-1\) digits of \(A\) produces the shifted number:\[Y = d \cdot 10^{m-1} + A\]We require this shifted number to be exactly twice the original number (\(Y = 2X\)):\[ \begin{aligned} d \cdot 10^{m-1} + A &= 2(10A + d)  \\ \\ d \cdot 10^{m-1} + A &= 20A + 2d \\ \\ 19A &= d \, (10^{m-1} - 2) \end{aligned} \]Now solve for the original number \(X = 10A + d\) by multiplying both sides by \(19\):\[ \begin{aligned} 19X &= 19(10A + d) = 10(19A) + 19d \\ \\ 19X &= 10d \, (10^{m-1} - 2) + 19d = d \,(10^m - 20 + 19) \\ \\ X &= \frac{d \, (10^m - 1)}{19} \end{aligned} \]For \(X\) to be a positive integer, the numerator \(d \, (10^m - 1)\) must be divisible by \(19\):

  • Since \(d\) is a single digit (\(1 \le d \le 9\)) and \(19\) is prime, \(\gcd(d, 19) = 1\).
  • Therefore, \(19\) must divide \(10^m - 1\), which is equivalent to the congruence:\[10^m \equiv 1 \pmod{19}\]The smallest positive integer \(m\) that satisfies \(10^m \equiv 1 \pmod{19}\) is the multiplicative order of \(10\) modulo \(19\). By Fermat's Little Theorem, \(m\) must be a divisor of \(\phi(19) = 18\) (so \(m \in \{1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18\}\)). Checking the smaller divisors modulo \(19\):
  • \(10^1 \equiv 10 \pmod{19}\)
  • \(10^2 \equiv 5 \pmod{19}\)
  • \(10^3 \equiv 12 \pmod{19}\)
  • \(10^6 \equiv (12)^2 \equiv 11 \pmod{19}\)
  • \(10^9 \equiv 12 \cdot 11 \equiv 18 \equiv -1 \pmod{19}\)

Because \(10\) is a primitive root modulo \(19\) (and \(19\) is a full reptend prime in base 10), the decimal expansion of \(\frac{1}{19}\) has the maximum possible period length of \(19 - 1 = 18\). No power of \(10\) smaller than \(10^{18}\) leaves a remainder of \(1\) when divided by \(19\), making an 18-digit number the shortest possible length.

Furthermore, we cannot pick \(d = 1\). If \(d = 1\), then$$X = \frac{10^{18} - 1}{19} = 052{,}631{,}578{,}947{,}368{,}421$$which has a leading zero and is actually a 17-digit number whose shift fails unless padded with a leading zero. Thus, \(d = 2\) yields the true smallest positive solution.

2. What Are the Next Largest Numbers?

Every valid choice of units digit \(d \in \{2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9\}\) in the formula:$$ X = \frac{d \,(10^{18} - 1)}{19}$$ generates an 18-digit solution. Because \(\frac{1}{19}\) is a cyclic number, all eight 18-digit solutions are simply integer multiples of \(\frac{10^{18}-1}{19}\) and are cyclic permutations of the exact same 18 digits:

Rank Units Digit d Fraction 2-Parasitic Number X Doubled / Shifted Result 2X
1 \(d = 2\) \(2/19\) \(105{,}263{,}157{,}894{,}736{,}842\) \(210{,}526{,}315{,}789{,}473{,}684\)
2 \(d = 3\) \(3/19\) \(157{,}894{,}736{,}842{,}105{,}263\) \(315{,}789{,}473{,}684{,}210{,}526\)
3 \(d = 4\) \(4/19\) \(210{,}526{,}315{,}789{,}473{,}684\) \(421{,}052{,}631{,}578{,}947{,}368\)
4 \(d = 5\) \(5/19\) \(263{,}157{,}894{,}736{,}842{,}105\) \(526{,}315{,}789{,}473{,}684{,}210\)
5 \(d = 6\) \(6/19\) \(315{,}789{,}473{,}684{,}210{,}526\) \(631{,}578{,}947{,}368{,}421{,}052\)
6 \(d = 7\) \(7/19\) \(368{,}421{,}052{,}631{,}578{,}947\) \(736{,}842{,}105{,}263{,}157{,}894\)
7 \(d = 8\) \(8/19\) \(421{,}052{,}631{,}578{,}947{,}368\) \(842{,}105{,}263{,}157{,}894{,}736\)
8 \(d = 9\) \(9/19\) \(473{,}684{,}210{,}526{,}315{,}789\) \(947{,}368{,}421{,}052{,}631{,}578\)
  • The immediate next largest number is the \(d = 3\) case: \(157{,}894{,}736{,}842{,}105{,}263\).
  • Notice that the 3rd solution (\(d = 4\)) is \(210{,}526{,}315{,}789{,}473{,}684\)—which is the doubled result of the first solution!
  • Beyond 18 digits: Because \(10^m \equiv 1 \pmod{19}\) holds whenever \(m\) is a multiple of \(18\) (\(m = 18, 36, 54, \dots\)), the next family of solutions occurs at 36 digits. You obtain them simply by concatenating any 18-digit solution with itself. The smallest 36-digit solution is:\[105263157894736842105263157894736842\]

3. History and Discovery

While the underlying cyclic period of \(\frac{1}{19}\) was known to 18th- and 19th-century number theorists studying repeating decimals and primitive roots (including Johann Heinrich Lambert in 1769, Carl Friedrich Gauss in Disquisitiones Arithmeticae in 1801, and William Shanks in the 1850s), the specific digit-shifting puzzle has a rich recreational pedigree:

  1. Walter B. Gibson (1938) & Maurice Kraitchik (1942): The earliest documented versions of the digit-transposition puzzle in recreational literature trace to American magician and puzzle writer Walter B. Gibson in 1938, and Belgian mathematician Maurice Kraitchik, who analyzed cyclic digit-shifting multiplications in his 1942 classic Mathematical Recreations.
  2. Freeman Dyson's Table Puzzle: In the mid-20th century, physicist Freeman Dyson famously posed the problem at a mathematical gathering: "Find the smallest positive integer that doubles when its last digit is moved to the front". Because Dyson could calculate the 18-digit number mentally in a few seconds—by starting with a trailing \(2\) and repeatedly doubling right-to-left with carries (\(2 \to 42 \to 842 \to 6842 \dots\) until reaching \(1\) with no carry)—the smallest \(n\)-parasitic numbers (OEIS sequence A092697) became known as Dyson numbers.
  3. Leon Bernstein (1968): In his paper "Multiplicative twins and primitive roots" (Mathematische Zeitschrift, 1968), mathematician Leon Bernstein formalized the algebraic theory connecting these numbers directly to primitive roots and \(p\)-adic expansions.
  4. Clifford A. Pickover (2000): The term "parasitic number" was coined and popularized by science and mathematics author Clifford Pickover in Chapter 28 of his 2000 book Wonders of Numbers.
Key takeaway: The size of the smallest \(k\)-parasitic number depends entirely on the multiplicative order of \(10\) modulo \((10k - 1)\). For \(k = 2\), \(10k - 1 = 19\) is a full reptend prime, forcing an 18-digit minimum. By contrast, for \(k = 4\), \(10k - 1 = 39 = 3 \times 13\), and since \(10^6 \equiv 1 \pmod{39}\), the smallest 4-parasitic number has just 6 digits: \(102{,}564 \times 4 = 410{,}256\).

Tuesday, 15 September 2026

Fermat Numbers

A Fermat number, named after Pierre de Fermat (1601–1665), the first known to have studied them, is a positive integer of the form: $$ \text{F}_n=2^{2^n}+1 $$ where n is a non-negative integer. The first few Fermat numbers are:
  • \(\text{F}_0=3\)
  • \(\text{F}_1=5\)
  • \(\text{F}_2=17 \)
  • \(\text{F}_3=257\)
  • \(\text{F}_4=65537\)
  • \(\text{F}_5=4294967297\)
  • \(\text{F}_6=18446744073709551617\)
  • \(\text{F}_7=340282366920938463463374607431768211457\)
The numbers form the initial members of sequence A000215 in the OEIS. The only known Fermat primes are the first five members of this sequence (3, 5, 17, 257 and 65537).

The number associated with my diurnal age today, \( \textbf{28289}\), is a prime and oddly it has a connection to these Fermat numbers via its membership in OEIS A229856:


   A229856: primes of the form \(384 \times k + 257\) where \(k \geq 0\)


The initial members are:

257, 641, 1409, 3329, 4481, 7937, 9473, 9857, 11393, 11777, 12161, 13313, 13697, 14081, 15233, 16001, 17921, 19073, 19457, 19841, 21377, 23297, 25601, 28289, 30593, 30977, 35201, 35969, 36353, 37889, 38273, 39041

It's stated in the comments to this OEIS sequence that:
Every Fermat number greater than 257 has a prime factor of the form \(384 \times k + 257, k > 0\).

Let's test this out with the initial Fermat numbers greater than 257. Now \( \text{F}_4=65537\) is a prime and so it is its own prime factor and we find that:$$65537 = 384 \times 170 + 257$$The next Fermat numbers listed above are all composite so we need to check their prime factors:$$ \begin{align} \text{F}_5=4294967297 &= 641 \times 6700417 \\ 641 &= 384 \times 1 + 257 \end{align}$$ $$ \begin{align} \text{F}_6=18446744073709,551,617 &=274177 × 67280421310721\\ 67280421310721 &= 384 \times 175209430496+257 \end{align}$$I won't attempt \( \text{F}_7 \) as it's too lengthy but the point is made. There's an explanation that Gemini provided as to why at least one prime factor of a Fermat number must have this form. You can check that out here.

Wednesday, 2 September 2026

Let Us Count the Ways

I was curious as to how to count the number of ways that a given number can be represented in Loeschian form based on its prime factorisation. I knew there was such a method for counting how many ways a number can be represented as a sum of two squares. I got Gemini to investigate, compare and summarise the results. Notice the use of the ceiling function when determining the number of essentially distinct pairs. Remember also that the invalid primes become valid if raised to an even power but they don't contribute to the count. The \(b_{\textit{i}}\) in the table refers to the exponents of the generating primes.

The algebraic frameworks for expressing integers as \(x^2 + xy + y^2\) and \(x^2 + y^2\) mirror each other directly through their respective complex integer rings.

Characteristic Loeschian Form \(x^2 + xy + y^2\) Sum of Two Squares \(x^2 + y^2\)
Complex Ring Eisenstein Integers \(\mathbb{Z}[e^{2\pi i/3}]\) Gaussian Integers \(\mathbb{Z}[i]\)
Invalid Primes
(Require Even Exponents)
\(p \equiv 2 \pmod 3\) \(p \equiv 3 \pmod 4\)
Generating Primes
(Exponents \(b_i\))
\(p \equiv 1 \pmod 3\) \(p \equiv 1 \pmod 4\)
Neutral Prime \(p = 3\) \(p = 2\)
Unit Symmetries
(Multiplier)
6 4
Total Ordered Pairs \((x,y)\) \(6 \prod (b_i + 1)\) \(4 \prod (b_i + 1)\)
Essentially Distinct Pairs \(\{x,y\}\) \(\lceil \frac{1}{2} \prod (b_i + 1) \rceil\) \(\lceil \frac{1}{2} \prod (b_i + 1) \rceil\)

Factorization Conditions

Both systems demand that primes which cannot be represented natively by the quadratic form must be "squared away" with even exponents in the prime factorization. For Gaussian integers, primes congruent to \(3 \pmod 4\) (such as 3, 7, 11) cannot form sums of two squares. For Eisenstein integers, primes congruent to \(2 \pmod 3\) (such as 2, 5, 11) cannot be Loeschian. If any of these restricted primes have an odd exponent, the integer cannot be represented in that form, and the total count is zero.

Symmetry and Distinct Ways

The difference in the total number of ordered coordinate pairs stems entirely from the geometry of the complex rings. Gaussian integers form a square lattice with 4 units (\(\pm 1, \pm i\)), leading to a rotational symmetry multiplier of 4. Eisenstein integers form a hexagonal lattice with 6 units (\(\pm 1, \pm e^{2\pi i/3}, \pm e^{4\pi i/3}\)), leading to a multiplier of 6.

Once these geometric symmetries are factored out by dividing by the respective unit count, both systems calculate the number of essentially distinct, non-negative integer pairs using the exact same ceiling function formula. The generating primes dictate this final count, while the unique neutral prime in each system scales the base integer without creating new algebraic variations.

Friday, 17 July 2026

Artin's Constant

My diurnal age today is 28229, a prime, with a reciprocal that has a period of 28228. It is thus one of those primes \(p\) with a period that is given by \( \dfrac{1}{p-1}\).

I got to wondering what proportion of primes have reciprocals that are one less than the prime itself. I asked Gemini. It's response follows and comprises the rest of this post.

Approximately 37.3956% of all prime numbers have reciprocals with a repeating decimal period of maximum length, \(p - 1\). In number theory, primes with this property are known as full reptend primes (or long primes) in base 10.

The Number Theory Behind Maximal Periods

The number of digits in the repeating period of the reciprocal \(1/p\) is determined by the multiplicative order of \(10\) modulo \(p\), denoted as \(\text{ord}_p(10)\).

By Fermat's Little Theorem, for any prime \(p \neq 2, 5\), the period length \(k\) is the smallest positive integer such that:

\[10^k \equiv 1 \pmod{p}\]

Since the multiplicative group \((\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})^\times\) has order \(\phi(p) = p - 1\), Lagrange's theorem dictates that the period length \(k\) must always divide \(p - 1\).

For the period to achieve the absolute maximum length of \(p - 1\), the integer \(10\) must be a primitive root modulo \(p\). When \(10\) is a primitive root, the successive powers of \(10 \pmod{p}\) cycle through every possible non-zero remainder from \(1\) to \(p - 1\) before repeating, generating a cyclic period of length \(p - 1\).


Artin's Constant and Asymptotic Density

The exact asymptotic density of primes for which a given integer is a primitive root is governed by Artin's conjecture on primitive roots.

Because the base \(a = 10\) is neither a perfect square nor \(-1\), Artin's conjecture predicts that the proportion of full reptend primes among all primes up to \(N\) converges to a universal mathematical constant as \(N \to \infty\). This value is known as Artin's constant (\(C_{\text{Artin}}\)), defined by the infinite product over all prime numbers \(q\):

\[C_{\text{Artin}} = \prod_{q \text{ prime}} \left(1 - \frac{1}{q(q-1)}\right) \approx 0.3739558136\dots\]

While Emil Artin's conjecture remains unconditionally unproven for specific bases like 10, Christopher Hooley proved in 1967 that the asymptotic density is exactly \(C_{\text{Artin}}\) under the assumption of the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH). Extensive computational verification confirms that the distribution stabilizes at this ~37.3956% threshold (cataloged as decimal expansion A005596 in the OEIS).


Period Lengths of Small Primes

Comparing the first few primes highlights how the multiplicative order behaves when \(10\) is (and is not) a primitive root:

Prime (\(p\)) Reciprocal (\(1/p\)) Period Length (\(\text{ord}_p(10)\)) Full Reptend? (\(k = p - 1\))
3 \(0.\overline{3}\) \(1\) No
7 \(0.\overline{142857}\) \(6\) Yes
11 \(0.\overline{09}\) \(2\) No
13 \(0.\overline{076923}\) \(6\) No
17 \(0.\overline{0588235294117647}\) \(16\) Yes
19 \(0.\overline{052631578947368421}\) \(18\) Yes
23 \(0.\overline{0434782608695652173913}\) \(22\) Yes

The sequence of base-10 full reptend primes continues: \(7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97, 109, 113, 131, 149, \dots\) (OEIS sequence A001122). Noticeably, primes like \(13\) (where \(10^6 \equiv 1 \pmod{13}\)) and \(37\) (where \(10^3 \equiv 1 \pmod{37}\)) fall into sub-cyclic periods because their multiplicative orders are proper divisors of \(p - 1\).

Friday, 19 June 2026

Sierpinski Numbers

I watched this video on YouTube video about Sierpiński numbers. It's quite informative but I thought I'd find out more.


I asked Gemini to find out more. Here is its report:

The Sierpiński Problem: An Exhaustive Analysis of Covering Systems, Primality, and Distributed Computational Number Theory

The intersection of abstract Diophantine number theory and large-scale computational mathematics has produced some of the most rigorous and collaborative problem-solving efforts in modern scientific history. At the center of this nexus lies the Sierpiński problem, a profound question that challenges mathematicians to determine the smallest odd natural number $k$ for which the expression $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ never yields a prime number for any positive integer $n$. Such numbers, known formally as Sierpiński numbers, represent a striking anomaly in the asymptotic distribution of primes, guaranteeing an infinite sequence of composite integers.

This comprehensive report explores the mathematical properties of SierpiÅ„ski numbers, the life and theoretical contributions of their discoverer WacÅ‚aw SierpiÅ„ski, the foundational proof mechanisms involving cyclotomic covering sets, and the ongoing, decades-long distributed computing efforts—most notably the "Seventeen or Bust" initiative—that seek to resolve the SierpiÅ„ski problem and its associated mathematical variants.

Historical Context: The Life and Legacy of Wacław Sierpiński

To fully grasp the significance of SierpiÅ„ski numbers, it is essential to examine the historical and intellectual environment of their namesake, WacÅ‚aw Franciszek SierpiÅ„ski (1882–1969). An eminent Polish mathematician, SierpiÅ„ski made outstanding and foundational contributions to set theory, point set topology, the theory of functions of a real variable, and number theory [cite: 1, 2, 3].

Born in Warsaw during the Russian Empire's occupation of Poland, SierpiÅ„ski’s early education was severely constrained by the systematic suppression of Polish culture [cite: 4, 5]. Following sweeping educational mandates implemented between 1869 and 1874, the Russian authorities forced all secondary schools and universities in the territory to operate entirely in the Russian language [cite: 3, 6]. The implicit geopolitical aim was to suppress Polish intellectual advancement; however, this hostile environment inadvertently forged SierpiÅ„ski's resilience and fierce intellectual independence [cite: 5].

Despite these formidable barriers, Sierpiński enrolled in the Department of Mathematics and Physics at the Czar's University (the official, Russian-controlled iteration of the University of Warsaw) in 1899 [cite: 1, 7]. His prodigious talent in number theory was recognized almost immediately. In 1903, the department announced a competition for an essay on the number theory contributions of the distinguished Russian mathematician Georgy Voronoy [cite: 3]. Sierpiński submitted a dissertation that won the university's gold medal in 1904 [cite: 1, 7].

His prize-winning work significantly advanced the famous Gauss circle problem. Specifically, if $R(r)$ denotes the number of integer lattice points $(m, n)$ contained within a circle of radius $r$ centered at the origin, there exists a constant $C$ and a number $k$ such that the error term is bounded by $|R(r) - \pi r^2| < C r^k$ [cite: 1, 7]. Carl Friedrich Gauss had originally proved in 1837 that the minimal value $d$ for $k$ is $d \le 1$. Sierpiński's major contribution was proving that this inequality could be tightened to $d \le 2/3$ [cite: 1, 7]. In 1913, the prominent German mathematician Edmund Landau shortened Sierpiński's proof, publicly describing the underlying mathematics as exceptionally profound [cite: 1, 7].

Despite his academic triumph, SierpiÅ„ski's Polish nationalism led him to withdraw his gold-medal essay from the university's Russian-language Izvestia journal, choosing instead to publish it years later in a Polish mathematical magazine [cite: 7]. Following his graduation in 1904, his academic journey pivoted toward set theory and topology. He became deeply fascinated by the continuum hypothesis, the axiom of choice, and fractal curves, eventually introducing geometric concepts that bear his name, such as the SierpiÅ„ski triangle (or gasket), the SierpiÅ„ski carpet, and the SierpiÅ„ski space-filling curve [cite: 4]. He was also the first to provide a concrete example of an absolutely normal number in 1916—a number whose digits occur with equal asymptotic frequency in any given base [cite: 6].

During World War II, Sierpiński courageously continued his academic work within the "Underground Warsaw University" while officially employed as a municipal clerk, smuggling his mathematical papers out of occupied Poland to be published in Italy [cite: 1]. However, his enduring fascination with the structural properties of integers eventually led his focus back to pure number theory. In 1960, utilizing advanced techniques in modular congruences, Sierpiński published a seminal proof establishing the existence of the numbers that now bear his name [cite: 8, 9, 10].

Mathematical Foundations and Polignac's Conjecture

The expression $k \cdot 2^n + 1$, where $k$ is an odd positive integer and $n$ is a positive integer, generates a specific class of integers. When the exponentiated term overtakes the multiplier (specifically, when $2^n > k$), the resulting integer is known as a Proth number, named after the 19th-century French mathematician François Proth [cite: 1, 3]. Proth numbers are highly significant in computational number theory because their primality can be tested with exceptional algorithmic efficiency using Proth's theorem, circumventing the need for exhaustive trial division [cite: 1, 11].

A Sierpiński number is defined specifically as an odd natural number $k$ such that the Proth expression $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ is composite for every integer $n \ge 1$ [cite: 10, 12]. For the vast majority of $k$ values, evaluating successive values of $n$ quickly yields a prime number. For instance, if $k = 3$, setting $n = 2$ produces $3 \cdot 2^2 + 1 = 13$, which is prime; thus, 3 is immediately disqualified as a Sierpiński number [cite: 2, 3]. The core mathematical anomaly of a Sierpiński number is that its sequence completely evades the infinitely many prime numbers scattered throughout the integers.

The conceptual architecture of Sierpiński's 1960 proof relies heavily on addressing a flawed hypothesis known as Polignac's conjecture. In 1849, the French mathematician Alphonse de Polignac conjectured that every odd integer greater than 1 could be expressed as the sum of a prime number and a power of two (i.e., $p + 2^k$) [cite: 13, 14]. While Leonhard Euler had previously noted isolated counterexamples like 127 and 959, Polignac's conjecture remained a subject of intense debate until 1950 [cite: 14].

In 1950, the prolific Hungarian mathematician Paul ErdÅ‘s and the Dutch mathematician J. G. van der Corput independently disproved Polignac's conjecture with rigorous finality [cite: 15]. ErdÅ‘s proved that there exists an infinite arithmetic progression of odd numbers that cannot under any circumstances be represented as a sum of a prime and a power of two [cite: 9]. To achieve this, ErdÅ‘s utilized a mathematical construct known as a "covering set" (or covering system) of congruences [cite: 13]. ErdÅ‘s observed that by carefully selecting a finite set of prime numbers—specifically $\{3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 241\}$—one could create a modular interlocking system where every possible exponent $n$ aligns with a modulus that forces the resulting expression to be divisible by at least one of those selected primes [cite: 9, 16].

SierpiÅ„ski’s 1960 Proof and the Mechanics of Covering Sets

Building directly upon Erdős's foundational concept of covering systems, Sierpiński proved his eponymous theorem: there exist infinitely many odd positive integers $k$ such that $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ is strictly composite for all positive integers $n$ [cite: 17].

The proof mechanism relies on a finite covering set of congruences. A covering set $P = \{p_1, p_2, \dots, p_m\}$ is a finite set of prime numbers constructed so that for every positive integer $n$, the expression $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ is divisible by at least one $p_i \in P$ [cite: 18, 19]. Sierpiński constructed a precise covering of exponents $n$ using the moduli $\{2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64\}$. This specific covering ensures that every integer $n$ satisfies at least one modular condition, triggering divisibility by a corresponding prime.

The mechanics of SierpiÅ„ski’s 1960 proof can be modeled by mapping the exponent conditions to their required prime divisors and the resulting congruences for $k$.

Index | Modulus for n | Exponent Congruence | Prime Divisor (p_i) | Required Congruence for k
1 | 2 | n = 1 mod 2 | 3 | k = 1 mod 3
2 | 4 | n = 2 mod 4 | 5 | k = 1 mod 5
3 | 8 | n = 4 mod 8 | 17 | k = 1 mod 17
4 | 16 | n = 8 mod 16 | 257 | k = 1 mod 257
5 | 32 | n = 16 mod 32 | 65537 | k = 1 mod 65537
6 | 64 | n = 32 mod 64 | 641 | k = 1 mod 641
7 | 64 | n = 0 mod 64 | 6700417 | k = -1 mod 6700417

Table 1: The covering system utilized in Wacław Sierpiński's 1960 proof [cite: 18].

The primes $\{3, 5, 17, 257, 641, 65537, 6700417\}$ form the covering set $C$ [cite: 1]. This specific set is highly delicate and demonstrates a deep structural connectivity to Fermat numbers. It functions explicitly because the fifth Fermat number, $F_5 = 2^{32} + 1$, factors cleanly into two distinct prime divisors: 641 and 6,700,417 [cite: 1].

By invoking the Chinese Remainder Theorem, SierpiÅ„ski proved that there exists a simultaneous solution $k$ to all the modular constraints listed in Table 1 [cite: 1]. Furthermore, because the prime moduli are pairwise coprime, the solutions for $k$ repeat periodically, forming an infinite arithmetic progression [cite: 1]. Any $k$ falling within this progression ensures that $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ is divisible by at least one prime in the covering set $C$ for any conceivable $n$, thus guaranteeing absolute compositeness [cite: 17, 19]. Solving this system of congruences yields the smallest $k$ native to SierpiÅ„ski's original method—an unwieldy 20-digit integer: 15,511,380,746,462,593,381 [cite: 17, 20].

John Selfridge and the Formulation of the Sierpiński Problem

While SierpiÅ„ski brilliantly proved the existence of these infinite progressions, he did not attempt to hunt for the absolute smallest example of such a number. In 1962, the American mathematician John Selfridge—renowned for his work on Fermat numbers, primality testing, and his proof alongside ErdÅ‘s that the product of consecutive integers is never a power—addressed this gap [cite: 8, 21].

Selfridge discovered a far more elegant and numerically compact covering set [cite: 1, 22]. He demonstrated that $k = 78557$ is a Sierpiński number by employing a covering set consisting of only seven small primes: $\{3, 5, 7, 13, 19, 37, 73\}$ [cite: 3, 8]. For $k = 78557$, the covering functions beautifully over the modulus 36 [cite: 19]. Selfridge proved that every number of the form $78557 \cdot 2^n + 1$ is perfectly divisible by at least one prime in this covering set, thereby ensuring that no prime number can ever be generated by the sequence [cite: 8, 18, 21].

A critical nuance in the definition of a Sierpiński number is the strict requirement that $k$ must be an odd integer [cite: 8]. If this constraint were removed, the number $k = 65536$ ($2^{16}$) would likely be a smaller candidate [cite: 23]. For $k = 65536$, the expression becomes $2^{16} \cdot 2^n + 1 = 2^{n+16} + 1$ [cite: 24]. This sequence only yields primes if $n+16$ is a power of 2, generating Fermat numbers. Since it is widely believed (though unproven) that $2^{16} + 1$ is the largest prime Fermat number, $65536 \cdot 2^n + 1$ would technically be composite for all $n > 0$ [cite: 23, 25]. To avoid entangling the Sierpiński problem with the unproven finiteness of Fermat primes, the definition strictly excludes even numbers, solidifying 78,557 as the premier candidate [cite: 3, 24].

Following his discovery, Selfridge engaged in private correspondence with Paul Erdős, conjecturing that 78,557 was not merely a Sierpiński number, but the absolute smallest possible Sierpiński number [cite: 8, 26]. Determining the mathematical truth of this conjecture is known as the Sierpiński Problem [cite: 8, 10].

Algebraic Compositeness: Aurifeuillean Factorizations

While covering sets represent the dominant mathematical paradigm for proving that a number is a Sierpiński number, they are not the sole mechanism. In 1995, the mathematician A. S. Izotov demonstrated that certain fourth powers could be proven to be Sierpiński numbers without establishing a comprehensive covering set for all possible values of $n$ [cite: 8, 27].

Izotov's proof relied on an advanced algebraic identity known as Aurifeuillean factorization [cite: 1]. He showed that expressions of the form $t^4 \cdot 2^{4m+2} + 1$ can be factored purely algebraically, independent of modular prime divisibility:

$$t^4 \cdot 2^{4m+2} + 1 = (t^2 \cdot 2^{2m+1} + t \cdot 2^{m+1} + 1) \cdot (t^2 \cdot 2^{2m+1} - t \cdot 2^{m+1} + 1)$$ [cite: 1, 28].

Because this polynomial factorization always splits the expression into two distinct integers strictly greater than 1, it proves that any exponent of the form $n \equiv 2 \pmod 4$ natively gives rise to a composite number [cite: 8]. Therefore, a covering set is only required to eliminate the remaining exponent classes: $n \equiv 0, 1, \text{ and } 3 \pmod 4$ [cite: 8]. Izotov's technique provides a profound second-order insight: the compositeness of the $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ sequence can arise from inherent algebraic geometry and polynomial expansion, rather than relying solely on the cyclical, interlocking gears of prime modular arithmetic.

The Distributed Computation Era: Solving the Sierpiński Problem

To rigorously prove Selfridge's conjecture that 78,557 is indeed the smallest Sierpiński number, mathematicians face a daunting task of exhaustive elimination. They must prove that every single odd integer $k < 78557$ is not a Sierpiński number [cite: 3, 8]. A candidate $k$ is successfully eliminated if and only if a positive integer $n$ can be found such that $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ is prime [cite: 8].

Pre-Internet Computational Efforts

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, testing these numbers was an arduous process constrained by the hardware limitations of early academic mainframes. By 1983, computational searches had determined that there were 70 values of $k < 78557$ for which no prime had been found for exponents $n \le 8000$ [cite: 10, 16]. Over the subsequent 14 years, targeted algorithmic testing slowly eliminated 48 of those multipliers [cite: 10].

A major paradigm shift occurred in August 1997 with the introduction of the Proth.exe software developed by Yves Gallot [cite: 2]. This program heavily optimized Proth's theorem for standard consumer personal computers, allowing amateur mathematicians to participate in the search. Utilizing Proth.exe, a decentralized group of enthusiasts (including Lew Baxter, Marc Thibeault, and Janusz Szmidt) systematically eliminated more candidates [cite: 22]. By the end of 2001, the list of unsolved multipliers below 78,557 had been reduced to exactly 17 [cite: 1, 10].

The "Seventeen or Bust" Project (2002–2016)

Recognizing that the exponent $n$ required to find a prime for the remaining 17 values was reaching into the hundreds of thousands—necessitating vast, decentralized amounts of computational power—two college undergraduates, Louis Helm and David Norris, along with Michael Garrison, conceived the distributed computing project "Seventeen or Bust" in March 2002 [cite: 16, 29]. The project's public client was released on April 1, 2002, allowing volunteers worldwide to donate their idle CPU cycles to test specific $k$ and $n$ pairings [cite: 29, 30].

The project was immensely successful and heralded the golden era of crowdsourced mathematics. Within its first year, it eliminated five $k$ values. Over its 14-year lifespan as an independent project, Seventeen or Bust found massive primes that eliminated 11 of the 17 candidates [cite: 16]. The primes discovered were mathematically significant; for instance, the prime found for $k = 19249$ by Konstantin Agafonov in 2007 contained nearly 4 million digits, making it the largest known non-Mersenne prime at the time [cite: 2, 30].

In 2010, the global volunteer platform PrimeGrid officially partnered with Seventeen or Bust to accelerate the search using the BOINC (Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing) infrastructure [cite: 31, 32]. Unfortunately, in April 2016, the Seventeen or Bust project suffered a catastrophic datacenter failure resulting in the loss of critical un-backed-up data [cite: 10, 33]. Consequently, PrimeGrid assumed full administration of the project and absorbed its mission [cite: 16, 29, 33].

Shortly after this transition, PrimeGrid facilitated the discovery of a 12th prime, eliminating $k = 10223$. Discovered by Szabolcs Péter of Hungary on October 31, 2016, the prime $10223 \cdot 2^{31172165} + 1$ contains a staggering 9,383,761 decimal digits [cite: 1, 16, 33]. The calculation required nearly 9 days of continuous processing on an Intel i7 CPU [cite: 16, 33]. At the time of its discovery, it was the 7th largest known prime overall, the largest known Proth prime, and the largest known Colbert number [cite: 16, 33, 34].

k Value | Exponent (n) | Decimal Digits | Date Discovered | Discoverer
46157 | 698207 | 210186 | Nov 27, 2002 | Stephen Gibson
65567 | 1013803 | 305190 | Dec 2, 2002 | James Burt
44131 | 995972 | 299823 | Dec 5, 2002 | Anonymous
69109 | 1157446 | 348431 | Dec 6, 2002 | Sean DiMichele
54767 | 1337287 | 402569 | Dec 23, 2002 | Peter Coels
5359 | 5054502 | 1521561 | Dec 6, 2003 | Randy Sundquist
28433 | 7830457 | 2357207 | Dec 30, 2004 | Team Prime Rib
27653 | 9167433 | 2759677 | Jun 8, 2005 | Derek Gordon
4847 | 3321063 | 999744 | Oct 15, 2005 | Richard Hassler
19249 | 13018586 | 3918990 | Mar 26, 2007 | Konstantin Agafonov
33661 | 7031232 | 2116617 | Oct 17, 2007 | Sturle Sunde
10223 | 31172165 | 9383761 | Oct 31, 2016 | Szabolcs Péter

Table 2: The 12 mega-primes discovered by the Seventeen or Bust and PrimeGrid collaborations, successfully eliminating their respective $k$ values from the Sierpiński problem [cite: 31, 32].

Current Status: "Five or Bust"

As of the mid-2020s, decades of concerted computational effort have distilled the original Sierpiński problem down to exactly five remaining unproven multipliers [cite: 8, 35]. While the project name could accurately be updated to "Five or Bust," PrimeGrid retains the original moniker for historical continuity [cite: 29, 35].

To definitively prove that 78,557 is the smallest Sierpiński number, a prime must be found for each of the following $k$ values:

Remaining Candidates for the Sierpinski Problem
k = 21181
k = 22699
k = 24737
k = 55459
k = 67607

Table 3: The five remaining odd multipliers below 78,557 [cite: 8, 10, 35].

Computational Infrastructure and Hardware Dynamics

The search continues under PrimeGrid utilizing a global network of hundreds of thousands of volunteers, supplying thousands of TeraFLOPS of processing power to test exceedingly large exponents [cite: 31]. The search space has long surpassed $n = 36420000$, venturing into algorithmic territory where any prime discovered will be well over 10 million decimal digits long [cite: 10, 30].

The underlying mathematics of the search relies on Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithms to multiply ultra-large integers efficiently. Applications like LLR (Lucas-Lehmer-Riesel), PRST, and Genefer are heavily optimized for both CPU and GPU execution [cite: 16, 35, 36]. The workflow is strictly bifurcated into two phases: sieving and primality testing. Sieving acts as a highly efficient filter, removing candidate exponents that have small algebraic factors. However, the deeper the sieve goes, the slower the rate of candidate removal becomes, eventually hitting an "optimal depth" where sieving takes just as much computational time as running a full primality test [cite: 28, 37].

Because computing large $n$ values requires intense, uninterrupted CPU time, multithreading is frequently employed. A single task running on one CPU core can take upwards of two to four weeks on older machines, making the tuning of parameters like max cpus critical for participants [cite: 35]. Interestingly, deep hardware analysis indicates that hyperthreading (or SMT) frequently decreases overall throughput for LLR primality testing. This negative performance scaling occurs because FFT calculations rely heavily on cache continuity and memory bandwidth rather than instruction pipeline multiplexing, prompting project organizers to advise volunteers to disable hyperthreading for LLR tasks [cite: 35, 38].

PrimeGrid also conducts rigorous "double checking" of legacy data. Because Seventeen or Bust suffered data loss, PrimeGrid systematically retests specific ranges of $n$ (comparing mathematical residues) to ensure no primes were missed due to hardware calculation errors or incomplete validation [cite: 30, 39, 40]. Two of the original twelve primes (for $k = 4847$ and $k = 33661$) were discovered exclusively because volunteers were double-checking previously computed ranges, highlighting the necessity of cryptographic-level verification in these searches [cite: 29, 39].

Generalizations and Extended Number Theory Problems

The theoretical proofs and computational methodologies developed for the Sierpiński problem have laid the groundwork for an entire taxonomy of associated mathematical conjectures. By altering the parameters, constraints, or signs of the $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ sequence, number theorists have generated a suite of derivative problems.

The Prime Sierpiński Problem

In 1976, Nathan Mendelsohn proved that $k = 271129$ is a Sierpiński number, utilizing the covering set $\{3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 241\}$ [cite: 1, 2]. Because 271,129 is itself a prime number, this discovery initiated the Prime Sierpiński Problem: determining the smallest Sierpiński number that is also a prime [cite: 8, 22].

To establish 271,129 as the smallest prime Sierpiński number, all prime integers less than 271,129 must be tested. Currently, there are nine prime multipliers for which no prime of the form $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ has been found: 22699, 67607, 79309, 79817, 152267, 156511, 222113, 225931, and 237019 [cite: 8, 22]. Notably, the first two values (22,699 and 67,607) are less than 78,557, meaning they are shared candidates with the original Seventeen or Bust project [cite: 10, 28]. PrimeGrid operates the "Prime Sierpinski Problem" (PSP) subproject specifically to eliminate these remaining values [cite: 3, 8, 28].

The Extended Sierpiński Problem

Assuming Selfridge's conjecture holds and 78,557 is the absolute smallest Sierpiński number, and assuming Mendelsohn's 271,129 is the smallest prime Sierpiński number, a structural gap exists. The Extended Sierpiński Problem asks: Is 271,129 the second smallest Sierpiński number overall? [cite: 8, 22].

Answering this requires searching the interval $78557 < k < 271129$ for any composite Sierpiński numbers [cite: 8, 22]. Eliminating the candidates in this range requires finding a prime for each composite $k$. As of the most recent computational updates, 11 composite multipliers remain in this interval: 21181, 24737, 55459, 91549, 131179, 163187, 200749, 209611, 227723, 229673, and 238411 [cite: 22]. (Again, 21181, 24737, and 55459 are shared with the original Five or Bust list, demonstrating the interwoven nature of these conjectures [cite: 22].)

Riesel Numbers and Dual Compositeness

The algebraic inverse of the SierpiÅ„ski function is the sequence $k \cdot 2^n - 1$. An odd natural number $k$ for which this expression is composite for all positive integers $n$ is known as a Riesel number [cite: 13, 15]. In 1956—four years prior to SierpiÅ„ski's proof—the Swedish mathematician Hans Riesel proved the existence of such numbers and demonstrated that $k = 509203$ is a Riesel number [cite: 15, 41].

Like Sierpiński numbers, Riesel numbers rely heavily on covering systems. However, the required primes often differ significantly due to the $-1$ altering the cyclotomic properties and algebraic factorization geometry [cite: 13, 19]. Unlike the $+1$ form, which allows flexible use of small primes like 5 and 7, Riesel coverings often require more complex congruences to avoid overlapping failures [cite: 8]. The quest to prove 509,203 is the absolute smallest Riesel number continues through PrimeGrid's "The Riesel Problem" subproject [cite: 6, 11].

Brier Numbers: Simultaneously Sierpiński and Riesel

A profound synthesis of these two sequences was theorized by Eric Brier, who asked whether an integer could be simultaneously a Sierpiński number and a Riesel number [cite: 8, 23, 42]. Such an integer, now known as a Brier number, must satisfy the condition that both $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ and $k \cdot 2^n - 1$ are composite for all positive integers $n$ [cite: 8, 17, 43].

Because a Brier number must satisfy the congruences of two independent covering sets simultaneously, the values of $k$ escalate dramatically. The smallest known Brier number, discovered by Christophe Clavier in 2013, is a 41-digit behemoth: 3,316,923,598,096,294,713,661 [cite: 1, 19, 24]. By leveraging a theorem of D. Shiu on the distribution of primes in arithmetic progressions, it has been mathematically proven that for every positive integer $r$, there exist $r$ consecutive primes that are also Brier numbers, hinting at the deeply patterned, yet elusive, nature of prime distributions [cite: 23, 42]. A 2021 Dartmouth College study by Pomerance et al. further proved that infinitely many numbers are simultaneously Sierpiński, Riesel, and Carmichael numbers, creating an intersection of pseudo-primality and forced compositeness [cite: 1].

Base Extensions, Repdigits, and the First Kind

While the standard definition operates in Base 2, the mathematics generalizes readily to any integer Base $b \ge 2$, where one searches for $k$ such that $k \cdot b^n + 1$ is composite for all $n$ [cite: 25, 44]. PrimeGrid operates projects like the Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 problem to eliminate candidates where $b=5$ [cite: 6, 44]. In 2025, PrimeGrid successfully eliminated $k = 67612$ in Base 5 by discovering a 3.8-million-digit prime (which took only 1 hour and 24 minutes of PRP testing on an AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX), bringing the remaining Base 5 candidates down to 27 [cite: 6, 36].

Furthermore, Sierpiński numbers of the first kind refer to primes of the form $k^k + 1$. Sierpiński himself proved that for $k^k + 1$ to be prime for any $k>1$, $k$ must take the highly restrictive form $2^{2^j}$, tying the sequence directly back to Fermat numbers [cite: 45, 46]. Mathematical investigations have also extended to detecting Sierpiński and Riesel numbers among restrictive integer subsets, such as Fibonacci sequences, Lucas numbers, and repdigits (numbers consisting solely of a single repeated digit in a given base) [cite: 15, 47].

Broader Implications and Conjecture Outlook

The quest to resolve the Sierpiński problem acts as a crucible for both pure mathematical theory and applied computer science. At the theoretical level, the existence of Sierpiński numbers directly links to Paul Erdős's combinatorial number theory. Erdős conjectured that for any Sierpiński number $k$, the smallest prime divisor of $k \cdot 2^n + 1$ must be bounded as $n$ approaches infinity [cite: 15, 27]. If this is proven true, it solidifies the hypothesis that all Sierpiński numbers are strictly the product of covering systems, ruling out any undiscovered algebraic anomalies that might cause infinite compositeness without a finite, periodic covering set [cite: 13, 27].

At the applied level, the search drives massive innovations in high-performance computing (HPC). The algorithms used by PrimeGrid to multiply integers spanning millions of digits—relying on discrete Fourier transforms and advanced memory bandwidth management—routinely push the physical boundaries of hardware stability [cite: 31, 35]. The massive prime numbers discovered in these searches are frequently utilized to stress-test modern CPU and GPU architectures, successfully identifying microscopic, silicon-level calculation errors before those processors are deployed in commercial, scientific, or cryptographic environments.

Conclusion

The Sierpiński problem stands as a towering testament to the enduring complexity of prime number distribution. What began in 1960 as a brilliant theoretical proof utilizing interlocking covering sets of prime congruences has evolved into one of the largest, most sustained distributed computing efforts in human history.

John Selfridge’s 1962 discovery of $k = 78557$ established the absolute baseline, and despite decades of aggressive computational searching by thousands of global volunteers, his conjecture that it is the smallest SierpiÅ„ski number remains flawlessly intact. The field has systematically stripped away candidates, transforming the original "Seventeen or Bust" initiative into the current "Five or Bust" reality.

As algorithmic efficiency improves and global computational power scales, the mathematical community steadily marches toward a definitive resolution of the five remaining candidates: 21181, 22699, 24737, 55459, and 67607. Whether a prime is eventually found for each, finally proving Selfridge right, or whether one of these five numbers stubbornly remains composite for all $n$, thereby rewriting number theory textbooks, the journey itself has fundamentally advanced our understanding of prime dynamics, modular coverings, and the very limits of computational mathematics.

References

  • [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpi%C5%84ski_number
  • [2] http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=13544
  • [3] https://primegrid.fandom.com/wiki/Extended_Sierpinski_Problem
  • [4] https://www.primegrid.com/
  • [5] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=972
  • [6] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1647
  • [7] http://www.prothsearch.com/sierp.html
  • [8] https://primegrid.fandom.com/wiki/Prime_Sierpinski_Problem
  • [10] https://t5k.org/glossary/page.php?sort=SierpinskiNumber
  • [11] https://primegrid.fandom.com/wiki/Seventeen_or_Bust
  • [12] https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.07376
  • [13] https://math.colgate.edu/~integers/aa12/aa12.pdf
  • [14] https://math.dartmouth.edu/~carlp/BFLPST_AMS121001.pdf
  • [15] https://www.fq.math.ca/Papers1/49-4/BaczkowskiFasorantiFinch.pdf
  • [16] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1647
  • [18] http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=13544
  • [19] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1750
  • [20] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=972
  • [21] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1538
  • [22] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9614
  • [23] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=8360
  • [24] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=13913
  • [27] https://grokipedia.com/page/primegrid
  • [28] https://grokipedia.com/page/Safe_and_Sophie_Germain_primes
  • [30] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=13913
  • [33] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9614
  • [35] https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL10/Jones/jones67.pdf
  • [37] https://math.dartmouth.edu/~carlp/BFLPST_AMS121001.pdf
  • [38] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpi%C5%84ski_number
  • [39] https://grokipedia.com/page/covering_set
  • [40] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Selfridge
  • [41] https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/37744
  • [46] https://boincsynergy.ca/wiki/PrimeGrid
  • [47] https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL10/Jones/jones67.pdf
  • [48] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpi%C5%84ski_number
  • [49] https://primegrid.fandom.com/wiki/Seventeen_or_Bust
  • [50] http://www.prothsearch.com/sierp.html
  • [51] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1647
  • [53] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=972
  • [54] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=8360
  • [55] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=7767
  • [61] https://grokipedia.com/page/primegrid
  • [62] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=13913
  • [63] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9614
  • [64] http://www.primegrid.com/old_news.php
  • [66] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1538
  • [67] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9614
  • [71] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1538
  • [72] http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1304&nowrap=true
  • [78] https://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/whats-happening/articles/how-do-you-solve-problem-sierpinski
  • [79] http://www.primegrid.com/old_news.php
  • [81] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=7116
  • [82] Unknown Source / Custom Execution
  • [84] https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Sierpinski/
  • [86] https://ns1.almerja.com/more.php?idm=80076
  • [89] https://www.primepuzzles.net/problems/prob_049.htm
  • [92] https://poetcommons.whittier.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=math
  • [94] http://www.prothsearch.com/sierp.html
  • [96] https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/37744
  • [98] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9614
  • [103] http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=7356
  • [104] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=8513&nowrap=true&menu=top
  • [108] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9614
  • [109] https://boincsynergy.ca/wiki/PrimeGrid
  • [111] https://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=1647
  • [113] https://math.colgate.edu/~integers/aa12/aa12.pdf
  • [116] https://poetcommons.whittier.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=math
  • [117] https://people.math.sc.edu/filaseta/papers/SierpinskiEtCoPap5.pdf
  • [118] https://oeis.org/A121270
  • [119] https://oeis.org/A121270/internal
  • [125] https://scispace.com/pdf/the-mathematics-of-paul-erdos-i-25xah963v8.pdf
  • [126] https://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kyodo/kokyuroku/contents/pdf/1639-08.pdf
  • [128] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riesel_number
  • [129] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256775044_On_Cullen_numbers_which_are_both_Riesel_and_Sierpinski_numbers
  • [131] https://people.math.sc.edu/filaseta/ConsecutiveWDDBrierNumbers.pdf
  • [132] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.08898

Saturday, 10 May 2025

An Interesting Looping Digit Sequence

A paucity of information about a number always challenges me to find something interesting about the number. Such was the case with the number associated with my diurnal age today: \( \textbf{27796} \). I could see that the first two digits of the number, 2 and 7, added to give the fourth digit and the fourth digit plus the fifth digit gave the rightmost digit (6) of the resultant sum (16). This was almost a Fibonacci sequence mod 10 except that the repeated digit 7 got in the way. 

So I devised the following set of rules. 

  1. Let \(a\) and \(b\) be the first two digits of the sequence \( (a,b)\)
  2. If \(b \neq 7 \), \(c=a+b \pmod {10}\) gives the next digit
  3. Let \(a,b=b,c\)
  4. If \(b=7\) then \(c=7\) and \(d=a +b \pmod {10} \) give the next two digits
  5. Let \(a,b=c,d\)
Applying these rules when \(a=2\) and \(b=7\) gives the following 68 member sequence (permalink):

[2, 7, 7, 9, 6, 5, 1, 6, 7, 7, 3, 0, 3, 3, 6, 9, 5, 4, 9, 3, 2, 5, 7, 7, 2, 9, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 3, 1, 4, 5, 9, 4, 3, 7, 7, 0, 7, 7, 7, 7, 4, 1, 5, 6, 1, 7, 7, 8, 5, 3, 8, 1, 9, 0, 9, 9, 8, 7, 7, 5]

How might we define 27796 in terms of this sequence? Well, perhaps like this. 27796 is the concatenation of the first five digits of the previous sequence created according to the rules 1 to 5 defined above. The digits of the sequence repeat when the 69th term is reached. The final two digits, 7 and 5, mark the end of the sequence because:$$ \begin{align} 7 + 5 &= 2 \pmod {10} \\ 5 + 2 &= 7 \end{align} $$Thus we have the same two digits, 2 and 7, that we started with. Figure 1 shows the progression of digits.


Figure 1: permalink

It can be considered that we are building a 68 digit number from a starting two digit number of 27. We might represent the number thus (with the superscript 7 representing the digit that is repeated and the overline indicating the cycle of 68 digits):$$ ^7 \, \overline{27796 \dots 98775}$$The number builds as follows:$$27, 277, 2779, 27796, \dots$$If we start with \(a=0\) and \(b=1\), as in the classic Fibonacci sequence, we still end up with a cycle of 68 and 7 is still the digit that's repeated. Here is the sequence (permalink) with Figure 2 showing the progression in graphical format:

[0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 3, 1, 4, 5, 9, 4, 3, 7, 7, 0, 7, 7, 7, 7, 4, 1, 5, 6, 1, 7, 7, 8, 5, 3, 8, 1, 9, 0, 9, 9, 8, 7, 7, 5, 2, 7, 7, 9, 6, 5, 1, 6, 7, 7, 3, 0, 3, 3, 6, 9, 5, 4, 9, 3, 2, 5, 7, 7, 2, 9, 1, 0]

Figure 2: permalink

It's easy to modify the algorithm so that a digit other than 7 gets repeated. Let's repeat the digit 6. In this case we end up with following 64 member looping sequence (permalink) with Figure 3 showing the progression in graphical format:

[2, 7, 9, 6, 6, 5, 1, 6, 6, 7, 3, 0, 3, 3, 6, 6, 9, 5, 4, 9, 3, 2, 5, 7, 2, 9, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 3, 1, 4, 5, 9, 4, 3, 7, 0, 7, 7, 4, 1, 5, 6, 6, 1, 7, 8, 5, 3, 8, 1, 9, 0, 9, 9, 8, 7, 5]

Figure 3: permalink

This time we can consider that we are building a 64 digit number:$$ ^6 \, \overline{27966 \dots 99875}$$The number builds as follows:$$27, 279, 2796, 27966, \dots$$Thus 27966 could similarly be described as the concatenation of the first five digits of the previous sequence created according to the rules 1 to 5 defined above. The digits of the sequence repeat when the 65th term is reached. There are many other combinations of digits that could be explored but the point of this post is that interesting number patterns can always be found with just a little scrutiny and imagination.

I've made two previous posts about numbers whose digits display Fibonacci-like properties. These posts are Additive Fibonacci-like Numbers in August 2024 and Consolidating Fibonacci-like Numbers in November of 2024. In the former post I looked at numbers like 28191 where the arithmetic digital root was invoked to reveal a Fibonacci-like progression:$$ \begin{align} 2+8 &=10 \rightarrow 1 \\8+1 &= 9 \\1+9 &=10 \rightarrow 1  \end{align}$$Here the digital root of the two previous digits determines the next digit which is then concatenated with the previous digits. This process again produces a looping sequence of digits and a 24 digit number that repeats endlessly (permalink):$$ \begin {align} &2, 8, 1, 9, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 4, 3, 7, 1, 8, 9, 8, 8, 7, 6, 4, 1, 5, 6\\\ &\overline{281911235843718988764156} \end{align}$$Alternatively, the digital root of all the previous digits can be used to determine the next digit. For example, 26875 where:$$ \begin{align} 2 + 6 &= 8\\ 2+6 + 8 &=16 \rightarrow 7\\ 2 + 6 + 8 + 7 &=23 \rightarrow 5 \end{align}$$In Consolidating Fibonacci-like Numbers, I considered numbers in base 10 that display Fibonacci-like properties when converted to other bases. I did not use digital roots for these cases, only digit sums. For example, 27802 in base 14:$$ \begin{align} 27802 &=\text{a1bc}_{14}\\ \text{a+1}&=\text{b} \\ \text{1+b} &=\text{c} \end{align}$$Related: The Pisano Period.

Sunday, 9 March 2025

Mathematics Puzzle Template

There is a type of Mathematical Puzzle that follows the template shown in Figure 1.


Figure 1

The puzzle above isn't too difficult to solve once one realises that the numbers in three out of the four inner quadrants are formed from the two numbers in the corresponding outer part of the quadrant by the formula:$$ \text{inner number = (larger number - smaller number)}^3$$ Thus the missing number is calculated as follows:$$ \begin{align} (8 - 2)^3 &= 6^3\\ &=216 \end{align} $$Removing the numbers from Figure 1 we are left with the (rather crude) template shown in Figure 2.


Figure 2

Using this template, it's easy to come up with other puzzles such as the one shown in Figure 3.


Figure 3

Here the solution lies in the fact that:$$ \text{inner number = (larger number + smaller number) mod 7}$$The solution is thus:$$ \begin{align} (11 + 3) \text{ mod 7 } &= 14 \text{ mod 7}\\ &= 0 \end{align} $$I may create more puzzles in the future using this template.

Thursday, 14 March 2024

Forming Equations from the Digits of a Number

There was a post that I made to my Pedagogical Posturing blog in August of 2013 before I created this mathematical blog in the second half of 2015. The title was "Forming Equations from Integer Sequences" and that title was perhaps a little misleading. At the time, I wasn't aware of the OEIS or Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. What I meant was the sequence of digits that define a number. For example, today my diurnal age is 27374 and so the sequence of digits is 2, 7, 3, 7, 4. Concatenation of the digits is not allowed. Thus we cannot have 27, 3, 7, 4 for example. 

In that long ago post, I wrote:

Recently I've been using Twitter to create a daily tweet that records my "day count" (number of days I've been alive) plus its factors (if not prime) and some interesting facts about the number itself or one of its factors. Sometimes there's little to say about the number and in such cases I've found that I can usually form an equation by inserting mathematical operators between one or more of the digits. 

For example, yesterday the count was 23518 and 23 - 5 = 18. Today the count is 23519 and 2 + 3 + 5 - 1 = 9. I was wondering if it's always possible to create an equation from five digits using the standard mathematical operators (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and exponentiation in combination with brackets). Obviously with just two digits, it's only possible when the digits are repeated e.g. 99 becomes 9=9. With three digits, it's sometimes possible e.g. 819 becomes 8 + 1 = 9 but generally it isn't e.g. 219. With four digits, it's more likely e.g. 2119 becomes -2 + 11 = 9 but I'm doubtful whether this is always so. There must come a point however, where the number of digits is sufficient to ensure that it's always so. Maybe five digits is that point.

From now on, I'll try each day to form an equation to test out this theory. For example, tomorrow the count is 23520 which becomes 2 + 3 - 5 = 2 x 0 and it works for tomorrow but beyond that let's see.

Needless to say I didn't "try each day to form an equation to test out this theory" but it might be time to give it a go. The 27374 of my diurnal age today is an easy one:$$2 \times 7 -3=7+4$$However, yesterday's number, 27373, doesn't prove so easy. It seems that having two 3's and two 7's in the number makes things difficult. The conditions that I imposed in the original blog post were the use of only the standard mathematical operators of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and exponentiation in combination with brackets. These operators needed to be applied to the digits in the order in which they occurred.

One modification that I will make here is to allow \(x \, | \,y\) meaning \(x\) is divided into \(y\) as opposed to \(x/y\) meaning \(x\) is divided by \(y\). This seems quite reasonable as it still only involves the operation of division but allows more flexibility. Its application doesn't seem to help in the case of 27373. If we allow the operator \(x\) // \(y\) meaning return the whole number part of the dividend, then an equation is possible:$$2|(7-3)=7//3$$If we allow // then we could allow \(x\) % \( y\) meaning return the remainder as a whole number when \(x\) is divided by \(y\). Thus 7 % 3 = 1.  This might be termed modulo division.

I can't see any way to create an equation from 27373 without extending the original conditions. Even concatenation of the digits doesn't seem to help. A common symbol for concatenation is || and thus 2 || 7 = 27. However, I've stipulated that the digits are to be treated as separate so I'll adhere to that condition. The best approach is to stick to the original conditions and if a solution is not possible, then // and % can be resorted to.

In the case of 27374, there is more than one way to create an equation. Here is another way:$$ 2 \times 7 -(3+7)=4 $$So what I'll try to do is to reassert my original goal of trying each day to form an equation and see what patterns emerge.

This activity of forming a "digit equation" is not all that different from one of Quanta's mathematical games called "Hyperjumps". See Figure 1.


Figure 1

Wednesday, 22 February 2023

Modest Numbers (Continued)

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

I'm having to run the previous blog post into this new post because I found that the word wrap wasn't working despite numerous efforts to fix it. 

In this continuation, I want to mention the fact that some numbers are "modest" in two ways not just one. Here is a list of such numbers in the range up to 40,000:

1333, 1999, 2333, 2666, 2999, 3999, 4666, 4999, 5999, 6999, 7999, 8999, 11111, 13333, 19999, 21111, 22222, 23333, 26666, 29999, 31111, 33333, 39999

As can be seen, all numbers have many repeated digits. Let's look at the first number in the list, 1333. We see that:$$ \begin{align} 1333 \! \!\! \mod 33 \equiv 13\\1333 \! \! \! \mod 333 \equiv 1 \end{align} $$Once we extend the range to one million, we find some numbers that are "modest" in three ways. These are:

133333, 199999, 233333, 266666, 299999, 399999, 466666, 499999, 599999, 699999, 799999, 899999

Taking the first number in the list above, 133333, we find that:$$ \begin{align} 133333 \! \!\! \mod 333 \equiv 133\\133333 \! \! \! \mod 3333 \equiv 13\\133333 \! \! \! \mod 33333 \equiv 1 \end{align} $$Clearly there is a pattern here and if we were to extend the range even further we would find that there are numbers that are modest in four ways and more. For example, 13333333 is "modest" is four ways:$$ \begin{align} 13333333 \! \!\! \mod 3333 \equiv 1333\\13333333 \! \! \! \mod 33333 \equiv 133\\13333333 \! \! \! \mod 333333 \equiv 13\\13333333 \! \! \! \mod 3333333 \equiv 1 \end{align} $$Once the algorithm for splitting any two digit number or larger into two parts is in place, it can be applied to other scenarios other than modest numbers. For example, consider this scenario where we define a "digestible" number for want of a better term as follows:

A number \(n\) is called digestible if its digits can be separated into two numbers \(a\) and \(b\) such that \( n\) divides evenly into \(a^b\).

In the range up to 40,000, there are 41 numbers that satisfy this criterion. They are (permalink):

128, 256, 486, 648, 729, 1024, 1296, 2048, 2187, 3072, 4096, 6075, 6144, 6561, 6912, 8192, 10240, 12288, 13824, 14336, 15488, 15625, 16384, 16807, 17496, 18432, 20480, 21609, 22528, 24576, 26624, 27648, 28672, 30375, 30720, 32768, 33614, 34816, 35721, 36864, 38912

The details for each number are as follows:


Figure 1

Let's take the first number in this list, 128, that divides evenly into 12 raised to the 8th power. Now 12 raised to the 8th power is 429981696 and 128 | 429981696 = 3359232. This is just an example of the sorts of investigations that can be carried out. Notice how all the powers of 2 are represented.