Inspired by Digitangular numbers.

The triangle of a natural number is given by


The digitangular counterpart of a natural number is given by the sum of the triangles of the digits of the number, e.g. $\newcommand{rdig}{{\rm digi}\triangle~}$


A digitangular sequence of a natural number is given by repeated applications of the digitangular counterpart of that number (and for the sake of consistency, we'll include the original number too) until we reach $1$. Beginning with $613$, the digitangular sequence is given by


I then proved that this sequence always terminates i.e. we'll always reach $1$ eventually with computer assistance. First show that the sequence always reaches $1$ for any starting natural number in $[1,135]$. For $x>135$, let $n=1+\lfloor\log_{10}(x)\rfloor$ be the number of digits in $x$. The largest value $\rdig(x)$ could be is if all of $x$'s digits were $9$'s, providing us with the bound


And for any $x>135$, we have




So the sequence eventually goes below $135$, and that's where we brute force the proof.

I'm searching for (possibly more elegant) alternative proofs, that preferably do not require computer assistance, that this sequence, for every natural $n$, always goes down to $1$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can more than halve $135$ and find the true bound without much calculation. $\newcommand{rdig}{{\rm digi}\triangle~}$ For $x\in [100, 135]$, the largest $\rdig(x)$ can get is $1+6+45 = 52$. From there, note that if the last digit of $x$ is not $0$, then $\rdig(x) - \rdig(x-1)\geq 1$, so the highest number for which $\rdig(x)\geq x$ must end with a $9$. Similarily, we can see that if $\rdig(x)\geq x$ for some two-digit number ending in $9$, then the same is true for any smaller two-digit number ending in $9$. We get that $\rdig(59) = 60\geq 59$, and this is the largest for which it happens. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Nov 22 '17 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting if this is true for any radix. $\endgroup$ – rus9384 Nov 22 '17 at 13:13
  • $\begingroup$ @rus9384 It probably is, simply consider a number of the form $b-1,b-1,b-1,\dots$ in base $b$ to be the largest result possible. But then we'd have to test smaller cases for every base... hm... $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art Nov 22 '17 at 13:19

So for numbers below $136$ the highest possible next number is given by $99$ which goes to $90$ and clearly down to $90$ gives a lower sum.

Below $99$ we have $89$ which gives $36+45=81$ as the maximum.

Below $81$ we take $79$ which gives $28+45=73$

Then $69$ takes us down to $66$ and $59$ gives $60$.

For every number above $59$ therefore we get a decrease by applying the operation.

But for some small numbers we have a two step process, which requires more calculation. It is easy to see that these include $59,49,39,29,19,9$.

Next consider numbers which don't contain a $9$. $58$ takes us down to $51$ and $48$ goes down to $46$ but $38$ increases to $42$ and we have the cases $38,28,18,8$ to consider.

By this means you can reduce the computation, but you can't eliminate it.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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