I Is there a happy semigroup of concatenated numbers?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter dkotschessaa
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of happy numbers and their potential closure under concatenation. A happy number reaches 1 through a process of squaring and summing its digits. The initial claim suggests that concatenating two happy numbers results in another happy number, but this is challenged by participants who argue that concatenation does not consistently yield happy numbers. The conversation also touches on the lack of an identity element and the absence of inverses, confirming that the structure is a commutative semigroup rather than a group. Overall, the idea remains speculative, with participants expressing uncertainty about its validity.
dkotschessaa
Messages
1,063
Reaction score
763
I haven't slept in awhile and I might have just come up with a totally useless or vacuous concept. It could possibly be a cool example of something. For some reason, I really like happy numbers.

A happy number is a number such that when you separate the digits, square each, and add them back together, you get the number 1 in a finite number of steps. i.e.

13 --> 1^2 + 3^2 = 1 + 9 = 10
10 --> 1^2 + 0+2 = 1

It follows then that if you concatenate two happy numbers you'd get another happy number. So this set is closed under concatenation. Let ## * ## be concatenation.Example:

13*10 = 1310 (which is clearly happy).

It's associative, and commutative. I suppose since I am using concatenation that the identity element is just the empty word. But the empty word isn't a number. It's certainly not a group since there is no inverse.

Without the identity it's at least a commutative semigroup. Kind of interesting. Or maybe not.

-Dave K
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I don't get why ##13\circ 10 =1310## is happy. Shouldn't it be ##1^2+3^2+1^2+0^2=11 \rightarrow 1^2+1^2=2##? I wouldn't see a problem with the unity, as you could simply define ##\{\}## to be happy and ##a \circ \{\}=a\,.## It's no group because left-concatenation is no bijection (I guess).

Edit: If you meant to continue: ##2 \rightarrow 2^2=4 \rightarrow 16 \rightarrow 37 \rightarrow 58 \rightarrow 89 \rightarrow 145 \rightarrow 42 \rightarrow 20 \rightarrow 4## which is a cycle without a ##1## in between.
 
I don't see an obvious closed operation between happy numbers, concatenation is not one.

13, 23 and 1323 are all happy: there are examples where it works, but in general it does not.
 
fresh_42 said:
I don't get why ##13\circ 10 =1310## is happy. Shouldn't it be ##1^2+3^2+1^2+0^2=11 \rightarrow 1^2+1^2=2##? I wouldn't see a problem with the unity, as you could simply define ##\{\}## to be happy and ##a \circ \{\}=a\,.## It's no group because left-concatenation is no bijection (I guess).

D'oh! Told you I didn't sleep. I had this funny feeling I would regret this post.
Edit: If you meant to continue: ##2 \rightarrow 2^2=4 \rightarrow 16 \rightarrow 37 \rightarrow 58 \rightarrow 89 \rightarrow 145 \rightarrow 42 \rightarrow 20 \rightarrow 4## which is a cycle without a ##1## in between.

Yeah, there might be something that works. But I should try again tomorrow.

I'm going to hide under a rock now.
 
dkotschessaa said:
I'm going to hide under a rock now.
Don't be square. :cool:
 
  • Like
Likes dkotschessaa
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Back
Top