4
$\begingroup$

Consider two cases a) we reverse the digits of a prime number b) we reverse the digits of a composite number. Are we more likely to obtain a prime in case a) or in case b). Since the last digit of primes other than $2$and $5$ end in $1,3,7$ or $9$ hence if a prime or composite number begins in $2,4,5, 6$ or $8$ there is no way its reverse will be a prime. So to make a fair comparison, I only considered those prime and composite numbers whose first and last digits is $1,3,7$ or $9$.

Let $C$ and $P$ be the set of such composites and prime numbers respectively. I looked at the first $10^8$ numbers (in ascending order) in $C$ and observed the density of numbers whose reverse is a prime is roughly $\frac{2.4n}{\log n}$. However in case of the set $P$, the density of roughly $\frac{3.5n}{\log n}$ i.e. about $45\%$ higher which is significant.

Question: Given the set of numbers whose first and last digits is $1,3,7$ or $9$, why is the reverse of a prime about $45\%$ more likely to be a prime than that of a composite?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ If a composite is divisible by $3$, then also its reverse. This could be one reason. But I wonder why this does not cause an even stronger effect. $\endgroup$ – Peter Apr 7 at 8:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Peter The effect could be slightly bigger. My computing is still running and at the moment, the coefficient is oscillating roughly between $3.45 - 3.55$. But I don't think it would be significantly bigger. $\endgroup$ – Nilotpal Sinha Apr 7 at 8:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Reverses of multiples of 11 are still multiples of 11. $\endgroup$ – MJD Apr 7 at 8:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I wonder how the result changes when one goes to base 2, etc. That may give some insight on importance of the base $\pm1$, I don't know... $\endgroup$ – Tesla Daybreak Apr 7 at 8:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Reverses of multiples of 10001 are all multiples of 10001. I think in other bases, numbers like this might be more common than in base 10. $\endgroup$ – MJD Apr 7 at 9:18
2
$\begingroup$
  1. If a composite number is divisible by 3, the sum of its digits is also divisible by 3.

  2. If a composite number is divisible by 11, the alternating sum of its digits is also divisible by 11.

Just two of those facts will give you a $\frac13+\frac1{11}=43\%$ better chance. You can further increase this number by starting adding up rarer cases. For example, if the number of digits in $p$ is a multiple of 3, then if $p = \overline{a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5a_6\ldots}$ is divisible by 7, then $(a_1+2a_2+a_3)+(a_4+2a_5+a_6)+...$ is also divisible by 7.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ plus if you keep it odd, your mixture of $\{1,4,7\}$ and $\{2,5,8\}$ the same creates another number with the same remwinder on division by 6 ... $\endgroup$ – Roddy MacPhee Apr 7 at 10:31
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You need $\frac13+\frac1{11} -\frac1{33}$ or you have double-counted the multiples of $33$. $\endgroup$ – MJD Apr 7 at 15:24

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.