1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

4-digit trick, predicting a final number

  1. Jan 20, 2012 #1
    Ask someone to pick 4 digits, but not all of them be the same.

    Zeroes are allowed as digits

    Form the largest number possible and the smallest number
    possible, including annexing any 0-digits to the left,
    Subtract the smaller number from the larger number,
    Write the difference as a 4-digit number, with any zeroes
    written on the left as part of the difference. Then,
    again, form the largest number and the smallest numbers
    possible, respectively, and subtract them. Repeat the
    process as above.

    Keep repeating this process until the resulting number
    doesn't change anymore.



    Then tell the person that their final number they end up

    with is 6174.


    Example:

    The person chooses 0, 0, 0, and 1.


    1000
    -0001
    ------
    0999


    Then:

    9990
    -0999
    ------
    8991



    And then the person who chose the digits would continue
    in this manner until one unchanging number is reached...
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 22, 2012 #2
    Is it?
    The very example you give of 999 seems to fall into a loop:

    9990 - 0999 = 8991
    8991 - 1998 = 6993
    6993 - 3996 = 2997
    7992 - 2997 = 4995
    5994 - 4995 = 999
    9990 - 0999 = 8991
    ...

    Edit: quick computer search on all 4-digit numbers (in this case, including numbers with all digits the same, palindromes, etc. - all numbers from 0000 to 9999):

    206 cases end with the loop ['0000']
    704 cases end with the loop ['8712', '6534']
    1594 cases end with the loop ['9090', '8181', '6363', '7272', '5454']
    3748 cases end with the loop ['0900', '0810', '0630', '0720', '0540']
    3748 cases end with the loop ['9990', '8991', '6993', '7992', '5994']
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2012
  4. Jan 22, 2012 #3

    No, for each subtraction, the first number must be composed
    of nonincreasing digits and the second number must be composed
    of nondecreasing digits.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2012
  5. Jan 23, 2012 #4
    Ahhh, sorry. So you sort the digits down, then up, and subtract.

    I repeated the experiment, this time obtaining:
    10 cases end with the loop ['0000'] (presumably, the all-digits-equal cases)
    9990 cases end with the loop ['7641']

    I was curious about how long it takes to reach the fixed number, and got this, for the above 9990 cases:
    24 cases took 0 steps (presumably, the 4! permutations of '6174')
    648 cases took 1 step
    1008 cases took 2 steps
    2184 cases took 3 steps
    1152 cases took 4 steps
    1830 cases took 5 steps
    2064 cases took 6 steps
    1080 cases took 7 steps

    But the question, of course, is *why* does it always end with 6174.

    Edit: removed comment about no other permutation of 6174 being reached first. Program bug, sorry.

    Edit 2: Hand-made diagram (hopefully correct) of the sorted differences.
    Edit 3: Working with 3 digits only, the situation is far more simple.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2012
  6. Jan 23, 2012 #5

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Nice Dodo!!

    Could you perhaps do the same with 5 digits and 6 digits and see if they also end in the same number??
     
  7. Jan 23, 2012 #6
    If I'm not mistaken, they don't. Pity that there is not a general rule to be found.

    With 5 digits, you can end up with 99954, 98622, 98532, 97731, 97641, 97533, 97443, 96642, 96543 or 95553 (or 00000).

    With 6 digits, you end on 995544, 886320, 876420, 875430, 875421, 866322, 885420, 766431 or 665442 (or 000000).

    With an odd number of digits, I guess you are bound to end always on a number containing a 9, because the middle digit is the same when sorting up or down...

    With 2 digits the situation is easier to understand. The difference of a number minus its reverse is a multiple of 9, and there are only so many possibilities; they happen to lie in a circle, 90 -> 81 -> 63 -> 72 -> 54 -> 90.
     
  8. Jan 23, 2012 #7

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

  9. Jan 23, 2012 #8
    Ah, nice, Micromass, thanks for the reference (:shame: I forgot to look up Wikipedia).

    This problem sounds like a remote cousin of the 3n+1 conjecture, doesn't it? (BTW, I don't have at hand Guy's "Unsolved problems", but I wonder if someone can check if Kaprekar's process is mentioned there, and related to something else. Or maybe is not as much "unsolved" as to merit being there.)
     
  10. Jan 23, 2012 #9

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    It sure does. The level of difficulties involved to prove something meaningful seems the same.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: 4-digit trick, predicting a final number
  1. 4 digit number (Replies: 4)

  2. Simple number tricks? (Replies: 9)

  3. Neat Number Trick (Replies: 3)

  4. Predict next Number (Replies: 12)

Loading...