Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've found a few different formulations of the problem where the given digits are different, so my guess is that it actually works for any array of integers. But I don't know how to solve it, nor where to start. I'm not that good in number theory.

share|improve this question
Look at $(n+1)^2-n^2$ –  deinst Feb 6 '12 at 21:41
@daniel: According to online calculator, $448464^2=201119959296$. Besides, the problem is to prove that such integer exists, not to find it (I guess it's enormous). –  Lazar Ljubenović Feb 6 '12 at 21:50
@deinst: Thanks for reply. That doesn't help me really though, I don't understand the general idea behind the problem or your hint. –  Lazar Ljubenović Feb 6 '12 at 21:51
Hint: can you see why for a large enough tail, there will be a square in the range: [201120122013000...0, 201120122013999...9]? Think about making the tail very large, and then the range of numbers is large; think what guarantees that you'll be able to trap a square in that range (based on deinst's comment). –  davin Feb 6 '12 at 21:52
I have removed several off-topic comments. @Artes, you should be much more respectful and constructive in the future. –  Zev Chonoles Feb 7 '12 at 2:03

3 Answers 3

up vote 10 down vote accepted

Consider $y = 10^k\sqrt{201120122013}$ then $\lceil y\rceil^2 < (y+1)^2 = 10^{2k} 201120122013 + 2y + 1$. Now $2y+1<10^{k+12}$ so if $k>12$ the leading digits of $\lceil y\rceil^2$ are 201120122013.

share|improve this answer
Nitpick: $10^{k+12}$ not $10^k+12$. Nice answer. –  Matthew Daws Feb 6 '12 at 21:58
@Matthew Damn nitpicky tex parser. –  deinst Feb 6 '12 at 22:01
I understand the basic concept behind the ceiling function, but I'm still inexperienced with it. Why is $2y+1<10^{k+12}$ and how does that yield your following statement? –  Lazar Ljubenović Feb 6 '12 at 22:14
@lazar Because $2*\sqrt{201120122013} < 10^12$. I actually could have made it much smaller. If $k>12$ then $2k>k+12$ and $10^{2k}>10^{k+12}$ so $\lceil y\rceil^2$ has the correct leading digits. This is of course overkill as other answers have shown. –  deinst Feb 6 '12 at 22:24
Now I understand everything. Even though it's overkill, it still proves that such integer exists (and even that there are infinite such integers). This is the kind of answer I was looking for, simple yet elegant. Thanks a lot. –  Lazar Ljubenović Feb 6 '12 at 22:38

$$ 44846418141586293^2 = 2011201220130000177943626365481849 $$

share|improve this answer
I crawled decimal expansions for square roots. –  ncmathsadist Feb 6 '12 at 21:55
$n = 448464181416$ also works and seems to be the smallest such integer. I only found it based on your answer, however. –  JavaMan Feb 6 '12 at 22:01
there are two lines to crawl. The first one works. You can also crawl 1418168.2622770825 –  ncmathsadist Feb 6 '12 at 22:04
141816826227708255**2 = 20112012201300000008048309395145025 –  ncmathsadist Feb 6 '12 at 22:06
Cool. $n = 141816826228$ works also and is again the smallest such number I can find. –  JavaMan Feb 6 '12 at 22:09

You're right that there's a general procedure for this - it's based on approximations of the square root. Suppose we have a number $n^2$ of length $d$ digits - in other words, $10^{d-1}\leq n^2 \leq 10^d$. Then saying that the first $12$ digits of $n^2$ are $201120122013$ is the same as saying that the first $12$ digits (after the decimal point) of $n^2/10^d$ are $0.201120122013$; or in other words, that $0.201120122013 \leq n^2/10^d \le 0.201120122013+10^{-12}$.

Now, let $t = \sqrt{0.201120122013} = .44846418141586\ldots$ and consider the numbers $t_i = \lceil10^i\cdot t\rceil$ - these correspond to taking longer and longer 'overestimates' of the digits of $t$; for instance, $t_1 = 5, t_2 = 45, t_3 = 449,\ldots$ Then we know that $0\leq t_i-10^i\cdot t\lt 1$ (by the definition of the ceiling function), so we know that $0\leq t_i^2-10^{2i}\cdot t^2 = (t_i-10^i\cdot t)\cdot (t_i+10^i\cdot t) \lt t_i+10^i\cdot t \lt 2(10^i\cdot t+1)$; since $t$ is less than $1$ then the last value is certainly less than $2\cdot 10^i$. But we can divide this by $10^{2i}$ to get $t^2\leq t_i^2/10^{2i}\lt t^2+ 2\cdot10^{-i}$ - or in other words, $0.201120122013 \leq t_i^2/10^{2i} \le 0.201120122013+2\cdot10^{-i}$ - and all we have to do to get this to match up with our original inequality is to take an $i$ such that $2\cdot 10^{-i}$ is even less than $10^{-12}$ - for instance, $i=13$ will do. This gives us an answer that $t_{13} = 4484641814159$ squares to $t_{13}^2=20112012201303326692877281$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.