How many numbers containing the digit 1.

  • Thread starter Thread starter sutupidmath
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the number of integers from 1 to 10,000,000,000 that contain the digit 1 versus those that do not. It concludes that there are 6,513,211,999 integers containing the digit 1, while 3,486,788,001 do not, indicating that more numbers include the digit 1. The difference between these two quantities is 3,026,423,998. Participants discuss various methods for arriving at these calculations, with one method involving a recurrence relation to derive the counts. The conversation highlights the complexity of the calculations and the potential for errors in reasoning.
sutupidmath
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
4
How many numbers containing the digit 1.Help!

Hello,

The question i am dealing with is this:Considering the integers from 1 to 10,000,000,000, answer the following two questions:
A. Is the number of integers that include the digit 1 greater or less than the number of integers that do not include the digit 1?
B. What is the difference between number (quantity) of integers that include the digit 1 and the number of integers that do not include the digit 1?


a. There are 6513211999 that include 1 as a digit, and there are 3486788001 numbers that don’t contain digit of 1.

Therefore, there are more numbers that contain the digit 1 than not.

b.3026423998



Reasoning:



After some trials, i came up with the following recurrence relation:



a_1=19,.. a_2=100,.. a_{2n}=(10)^{n+1}.. and... a_{2n+1}=8*\sum _{i=1}^{2n-1} a_i





Now the total sum of the numbers that contain digits is calculated by summing up the following:





a_{14}+\sum_{n=1}^{6}[a_{2n}+a_{2n+1}]=<br /> <br /> =<br /> <br /> a_{14}+\sum_{n=1}^{6}[ a_{2n}+(8*\sum _{i=1}^{11} a_i) ]



I don't know whether there is supposed to be a more clever and including less calculations method for doing this.

FIrst, is the answer correct? ANd second if yes, does my reasoning make sense?

THnx in advance!
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org


Let's look at the numbers from 0 to 9,999,999,999 instead. There are ten digit positions, each of which is filled with exactly one digit (including leading zeros). There are b^10 ways to fill them with b digits. When b=10, that says that there are 10^10 numbers in the range. When b = |{0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}| = 9...

Hope you don't feel too :blushing: for missing that.
 


CRGreathouse said:
Let's look at the numbers from 0 to 9,999,999,999 instead. There are ten digit positions, each of which is filled with exactly one digit (including leading zeros). There are b^10 ways to fill them with b digits. When b=10, that says that there are 10^10 numbers in the range. When b = |{0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}| = 9...

Hope you don't feel too :blushing: for missing that.

Hi, i appreciate your response.

THe deal is that, i truly believe that my method is correct, since it is even compatible with the one you just described. But, i think i might have done some mistaces in calculations, while adding stuff.

FOr example let's look at numbers between 0-9999

so according to the method you just described, we would have b^4, since there are 4 digit positions to be filled with b digits. When b=10=> 10^4=10000, and 9^4=6561

So, the number of 1'nes will be 10000-6561=3439.

Which is exactly the same result that i get if i apply the method i 'invented'.

Let's look at it.

a_1=19,.. a_2=100,.. a_{2n}=(10)^{n+1}.. and... a_{2n+1}=8*\sum _{i=1}^{2n-1} a_i


we would have n=0,1,2.

a_1+a_2+a_3+a_4+a_5=19+100+8*19+1000+8*[a_1+a_2+a_3]=1271+8*271=3439

Which is the same as above.

So, i think i should have done some mistakes while adding stuff.

But the way you pointed out is much easier and way more clever as well.
 
Um, we can't comment on your reasoning because you've given none. You have just written down some sequence a_i without justification, so it's impossible to say if the a_i were correct in spirit but incorrect in practice.
 


sutupidmath said:
So, i think i should have done some mistakes while adding stuff.

That was my conclusion, since your number was very close to mine.

sutupidmath said:
But the way you pointed out is much easier and way more clever as well.

It only seemed clever because you didn't know it took me > 10 minutes to come up with it. But it is easier.
 
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...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top