Some Unique Numbers

How many positive integers satisfy the condition that the product of their digits multiplied by the sum of their digits equals themselves? For example,

13 ( 1 × 3 ) ( 1 + 3 ) 13\neq (1 \times 3)(1+3)

Infinite 13 3 2 1

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

1 solution

Hamza A
Jan 13, 2019

This is not a solution, but rather an explanation of how mathematician D. Wilson arrived at this result. Denote the number as n n . Define the number of digits it has as a a and its digits n 1 n 2 . . . n a \overline{n_1n_2...n_a} . Then we know that

n 1 0 a 1 n \geq 10^{a-1}

We also know that

k = 1 a n k 9 a \prod_{k=1}^{a} n_k \leq 9^a

and

k = 1 a n k 9 a \sum_{k=1}^{a} n_k \leq 9a

Then by definition,

1 0 a 1 n = k = 1 a n k k = 1 a n k 9 a 9 a 10^{a-1} \leq n=\prod_{k=1}^{a} n_k \cdot \sum_{k=1}^{a} n_k \leq 9^a \cdot 9a 1 0 a 1 a 9 a + 1 10^{a-1} \leq a9^{a+1} a 84 a \leq 84

Therefore,

k = 1 a n k 9 a 756 \sum_{k=1}^{a} n_k \leq 9a \leq 756 k = 1 a n k n < 1 0 85 \prod_{k=1}^{a} n_k \leq n <10^{85}

We know that the product of the digits will have the prime factorization 2 w 3 x 5 y 7 z 2^w 3^x 5^y 7^z . However if n m o d 10 = 0 n \mod 10=0 then 10 10 also divides k = 1 a n k \prod_{k=1}^{a} n_k . Hence, n n ends in 0 0 and k = 1 a n k = 0 \prod_{k=1}^{a} n_k=0 . So k = 1 a n k = 2 w 3 x 7 z \prod_{k=1}^{a} n_k =2^w 3^x 7^z or . k = 1 a n k = 3 x 5 y 7 z \prod_{k=1}^{a} n_k = 3^x 5^y 7^z . This reduces the amount of numbers to check by a considerable amount. It turns out there are only three such numbers, 1 , 135 , 144 1,135,144 . There might be an insight I am lacking that makes further reduction in the numbers to check, so I posted the problem in case someone can provide such insight.

@Mehrdad Mohana

Hamza A - 2 years, 4 months ago

Thanks for the response.

A Former Brilliant Member - 2 years, 4 months ago

I'm not sure I follow the solution. Why does it follow from 1 0 a 1 a 9 a + 1 10^{a-1}\leq a9^{a+1} that a 84 a\leq 84 ? And how did you use this bound on a a to arrive at your solution?

Jordan Cahn - 2 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Just solve for when 1 0 a 1 = a 9 a + 1 10^{a-1}=a9^{a+1} and take the a \lfloor a\rfloor . I explicitly stated that this is not a solution, but rather how to come to the conclusion by narrowing the amount of numbers checked.

Hamza A - 2 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

I get a 2 \lfloor a \rfloor\leq -2 and 0 a 3 0\leq\lfloor a\rfloor\leq 3 for solutions. Not sure where 84 84 comes from.

Also, given that all you know before your final step is that n < 1 0 85 n<10^{85} , there's a lot of missing "narrowing" to get down to three numbers, even considering the restrictions on the digits.

Jordan Cahn - 2 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Jordan Cahn Well a a can not be negative. Just graph the equations x x and 1 0 x 1 9 x + 1 \frac{10^{x-1}}{9^{x+1}} then see where they intersect.

Hamza A - 2 years, 4 months ago

@Jordan Cahn And on the narrowing yes I know, which is why I explicitly stated that this was not a solution.

Hamza A - 2 years, 4 months ago

I got 135 and 144, overlooked 1. Ed Gray

Edwin Gray - 2 years, 4 months ago

If n f n_f is the first digit, then the slightly more specific statement n 1 0 a 1 n f n\geq 10^{a-1} n_f is also true. If you then divide by n f n_f when doing the inequalities, you end up with 1 0 a 1 a 9 a 10^{a-1}\leq a9^a , which gives a 60 a\leq60 . It's not great, but still a substantial improvement on 84.

Joseph Newton - 2 years, 4 months ago

This if fun to consider in other number bases. For base 2 the answer is trivial -- there is only 1. (Therefore I answered the question "1" because that is the only solution that holds in all number bases). What about base 3? Note that using the more restrictive criterion above, the maximum number of digits for base 3 is 7, and for base 4, 13. Base 4 and base 5 have nontrivial solutions -- care to find them? Note that for bases that are a composite number, the "trick" of reducing the calculations by eliminating powers of the radix (base) itself could help, but I haven't implemented an efficient algorithm yet.

A Former Brilliant Member - 2 years, 4 months ago

Famously known as Sum Product Numbers ..........

Aaghaz Mahajan - 2 years, 4 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...