 |
 |
Articles / TULARC / Self Growth / Puzzles / |  |
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
   |
|
||
|
68 arithmetic/digits/palindrome.p |
|
||
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
|
Articles / TULARC / Self Growth / Puzzles / | |
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
68 arithmetic/digits/palindrome.p |
|
||
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
This article is from the Puzzles FAQ, by Chris Cole chris@questrel.questrel.com and Matthew Daly mwdaly@pobox.com with numerous contributions by others.
Does the series formed by adding a number to its reversal always end in
a palindrome?
arithmetic/digits/palindrome.s
This is not known.
If you start with 196, after 9480000 iterations you get a 3924257-digit
non-palindromic number. However, there is no known proof that you will
never get a palindrome.
The statement is provably false for binary numbers. Roland Sprague has
shown that 10110 starts a series that never goes palindromic.
Continue to:
|
|
|
|
 |
|