What Positive Number Doubles When The Last Digit Moves To The First Digit? Riddle For "Geniuses"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- If the last digit of this POSITIVE whole number becomes the first digit, the resulting number is exactly twice as large. My number is the smallest whole number with this property. What is my number? Watch the video for a solution. I'll give you a hint: you are unlikely to solve for the answer by casually guessing it. But a genius might be able to. Legendary mathematician Freeman Dyson apparently heard the problem and instantly replied with the number of digits in the answer.
My blog post for this video:
wp.me/p6aMk-5eH
Sources
angrystatistic...
en.wikipedia.o...
tierneylab.blo...
tierneylab.blo...
math.stackexch...
Alex Bellos book "Can You Solve My Problems" www.amazon.com...
If you like my videos, you can support me at Patreon: / mindyourdecisions
Connect on social media. I update each site when I have a new video or blog post, so you can follow me on whichever method is most convenient for you.
My Blog: mindyourdecisio...
Twitter: / preshtalwalkar
Facebook: / 168446714965
Google+: plus.google.co...
Pinterest: / preshtalwalkar
Tumblr: / preshtalwalkar
Instagram: / preshtalwalkar
Patreon: / mindyourdecisions
Newsletter (sent about 2 times a year): eepurl.com/KvS0r
My Books
"The Joy of Game Theory" shows how you can use math to out-think your competition. (rated 3.9/5 stars on 29 reviews) www.amazon.com...
"The Irrationality Illusion: How To Make Smart Decisions And Overcome Bias" is a handbook that explains the many ways we are biased about decision-making and offers techniques to make smart decisions. (rated 5/5 stars on 2 reviews) www.amazon.com...
"Math Puzzles Volume 1" features classic brain teasers and riddles with complete solutions for problems in counting, geometry, probability, and game theory. Volume 1 is rated 4.4/5 stars on 13 reviews. www.amazon.com...
"Math Puzzles Volume 2" is a sequel book with more great problems. (rated 5/5 stars on 3 reviews) www.amazon.com...
"Math Puzzles Volume 3" is the third in the series. (rated 3.8/5 stars on 4 reviews) www.amazon.com...
"40 Paradoxes in Logic, Probability, and Game Theory" contains thought-provoking and counter-intuitive results. (rated 4.3/5 stars on 12 reviews) www.amazon.com...
"The Best Mental Math Tricks" teaches how you can look like a math genius by solving problems in your head (rated 4.7/5 stars on 4 reviews) www.amazon.com...
"Multiply Numbers By Drawing Lines" This book is a reference guide for my video that has over 1 million views on a geometric method to multiply numbers. (rated 5/5 stars on 3 reviews) www.amazon.com...
You guys are really sharp: a commenter immediately pointed out 0 would work. I missed it and even some of the sources I read missed this corner case. So a clarification: the number is positive.
Be careful of the 0. For a programmer there are +0 and -0.
I think it would bo cool if you'd give the problems in a superprecise way becouse I often find some weird trick and kill my fun
Because when you remove the rightmost digit, all the other digits shift to the right.
MindYourDecisions I suppose that now you're also going to say that it's a whole number, seeing as 1.05263157894736842 is quite a bit smaller than 105,263,157,894,736,842 but still satisfies all of the other rules set forth.
Phroggster, your number won't work since you can't move the decimal point.
Since the numeral system wasnt specified, i used Binary, and 10 is the double of 01
But 1x2=2
#include
#include
#include
int main() {
std::bitset value = 0x01;
std::bitset ans = 0x00;
std::cout
@@skilz8098 are you a magician and is this an incantation
@@epictetusphilosophy No; it's just basic C++ code! And it is a solution to the original question!
Genius
who else thought that this was a two digit number at first?
Andrew Cuber hahah me
IKR@@supercoolguygamer9239
Mi
me too 🙄
Just so you know the smallest positive number is 12
I immediately thought of zero, but began to think that would be "lazy" and began to think positive numbers. Then I thought negative numbers... And no, I didn't figure it out. I just broke my brain.
Zero is a positive number. It's also a negative number.
If the problem wishes to exclude zero as a solution it should limit itself to strictly positive numbers (i.e. |No)
@@photoo848 By usual definitions zero is not considered positive, but just non-negative
@@0106johnny Not over here it isn't. From other comments I've since learned it can differ by region but I was taught that zero is both negative & positive. It's both in |N and in - |N
The problem never specifies positive numbers or even integers.
9:57 "did you figure this out?" Take a wild guess...
:))
IS there anyone who did?
@@moinfahad I solved it before watching. I used method 2.
- did you figure this out?
- oh hell no lol
@@moinfahad lol yes. With a modified 2nd method. I used a big number calculator to check if (x mod 19) = 0, which isn't really forbidden but it's just not as cool as what they did.
Man, math is a lot more fun when you're not forced to learn it
French Man I couldn't agree more
oui oui
Really ....because I am a doctor, but I could enjoy it more 😍
Math should be fun and this way should be presented. Teachers who force math without fun are very bad and shouldn't teach math.
Most things are fun when not forced
Me thinking I can iterate through a range with a simple python script. Then finding out the answer is 18 digits. Rip CPU
Exactly what I did LOL!
Laughs in gpu accelerated with rtx 2080
@@numbdigger9552 so rip your gpu then ? :D
You can solve it with a python script by iterating over the exponent rather than the number itself. For example, you could check for which value of k you have:
(10^k-2)%19=0
You find the answer you're looking for after only 18 tries. I solved it in 10 minutes using this method
@@federicorios1140 if you do the algebra that far you might as well just finish it :D. To point of an numeric approach is that you dont have to think about that at all... and its fun to test if its possible
watches first 30 seconds
"25 × 2 = 50"
skips 8 minutes
"Set up an algebra equation"
I thought it was 12....
Patriot10 why doesn’t 12 work
@@katsuma-csgo8264 12 times 2 to make 24. If you moved the last digit to the first digit, you would get 21 which proves that 12 doesn't work
@@blazingrune8535 it clearly said a number where it's last digit becomes first digit when x2, the new number is also twice as large
@@blazingrune8535 how is it 21? The question never said anything avout the first digit becoming the last aswell. Or in other words, switching digits. All it said was that the last becomes the first. The last digit doesn't need to be anything inparticular as far as the question goes.
What's the Wi-Fi password?
It's in the back of the router
Back of the router:
@@krelstm8241 but 0 is neither positive not negative
@@arjungautam4369 Most people just agree it's positive. Just like how most people count 1, 2, and 3 as prime numbers.
@@vampire_catgirl In the Description, Presh remarks that many commenters quickly caught that 0 was a solution; so he says to restrict the question to positive solutions.
Secondly, 1 is not a prime number. Anymore. It was considered prime many years ago until a choice was made.
Because if you use the definition, 'no [integer] divisors other than itself and 1,' then 1 qualifies as prime.
The problem then becomes the complication this requires in stating the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic (FTA), that every positive integer is a product of primes that is unique apart from ordering the factors. Because you can put any number of "1"s into the product, breaking that uniqueness; so you have to amend the theorem to say that 1's are also excluded from the factorization, except when expressing 1 itself, where you're allowed only a single 1.
[The FTA is really what makes primeness even an important concept, so it's crucial to this.]
The other choice was taken some decades or more ago - amend the definition of a prime to be a positive integer that has exactly two divisors.
This excludes 1, which has only a single divisor.
Fred
@@vampire_catgirl 1 is not a prime no.
MYD: * Gives the incredibly difficult solution of the problem *
Also MYD: "Did you figure it out?"
Me: "Hold up, 108 quadrill-what now? I was still trying 46 as a solution :'/"
Ezra Hulsman I figured it out! With pen and paper. Although I hadn't proven it was the smallest solution. I just continued until the modulus went periodic. It's like Pisano periods, simple really... And fun to make music from!
"When you are ready, keep watching the video for the solution"
There's a pause button for a reason.
DJEdg10 Haha well done, I tried it off the top of my head but I would've never gotten there XD Neither would I have come up with that with pen and paper, so yeah...
This puzzle definitely requires some mathematical education to solve. But anybody that has studied modular arithmetic and/or trained a bit for math olympiads would've gotten it.
Yeah, you've got '64' likes too.😎😎
I came up with a really weird, complex, and time-consuming method at first (as I always tend to do), but I'm pretty sure it would've gotten a right answer:
It starts off as trial and error, but I'm looking for patterns.
I first started marking down 2-digit numbers that were close:
12 -> 21 is 3 too low.
13 -> 31 is 5 too high.
24 -> 42 (6 low)
25 -> 52 (2 high)
37 -> 73 (1)
38 -> 83 (7)
49 -> 94 (4)
and that's it... but for fun:
4'10' (50) -> 104 (which is 4 too high)
The reason I include the last example is because it fits the pattern: for each pair of numbers which is just too high and just too low, their combined distance from their double adds to 8.
As you can see in the last example, it fits. Why 8 though? Well, I kept going...
3 digits:
101->110 (92)
102->210 (6)
These add up to 98... 2 less than 100. 8 is 2 less than 10. I might be onto something.
112->211 (13)
113->311 (85)
At this point the pattern continues. However, there is another *very interesting* pattern I discovered at this point. In the 2-digit examples, all the "too high" numbers (3->6->1->4) actually is a continuous addition of 3, modulo 8, the sum! And for the 3-digits, 92->13 is an addition of 19, modulo 98! In fact, if you add 19 to 3, you get 6 (when you modulo by 8).
I tried many 3- and 4-digit numbers and kept getting 19 as the number which took me to the next "too high" number (and you could go reverse for the "too low" numbers).
And 998 was the sum for 4-digit distances.
I decided at this point that I would be looking for a number with distance 0 (obviously), but getting there would be the issue. Essentially, I could begin at the very first number pair of the x-digits and find out how many additions of 19 I would need to get 0 (when you modulo by [10^(digits-1) - 2]). I tried for 6 digit numbers and became discouraged after that. However, after watching the video, if I go immediately to 18 digits:
1...01 -> 11...0 (900...0002)
1...02 -> 21...0 (999...9996)
Where the sum is 99,999,999,999,999,998 (16 9's and an 8, exactly 10^17-2)
Now, the "too high" number (900...0002) must become 0 through addition of 19's. At this point I actually don't want to work this out xD
999...998 - 900...0002 = 999...9996. 999...9996 / 19 = 526,315,789,473,684 exactly. That is how many 19's to add, and tells us which number we want to use.
100,000,000,000,000,00X's "too high" is 900...0002 (as shown above), and
100,000,000,000,000,01X's "too high" is 900...0021 (by adding 19), and if we continue,
105,263,157,894,736,84X's "too high" will be 0 (once modulo'd). This means that our final digit (X) is the only question remaining. Finally, we get 2 (which is the only digit that works).
Thus, finally, my slow and steady (and way too complicated) method spurns out the correct answer!
But only after giving up and trying a different way xD
Something interesting that I haven't figured out yet: Why did 19 appear? It appears as the denominator in Method 2 in the video, which really intrigues me.
Also, why 8, 98, 998, etc? Some very interesting problems.
Would you like to be my friend?
why 8, 98, 998? Well, If you have a number xyz, you can express it with the formula 100*x + 10*y+z. When the last digit is moved to the beginning, the number changes to zxy, which can be expressed as 100*z+10*x+y. According to the conditions of the problem, the new number is twice as large as the previous one, so we can determine the equality: (200-10)*x+(20-1)*y+(2-100)*z=0 or 190*x + 19*y - 98z = 0 Looking at this equality, it becomes clear that there are no three-digit numbers that we need, because the first two terms are multiples of 19, but the third is not (since z>0 and z
I can explain it to u ! Leave a reply if u still wanna know why
@@salmabiyad I wanna know
When I read your original problem, I mistook it for switching the first digit with the last digit (leaving all the rest preserved). I recommed giving it a try! I was able to prove that there are no solutions in that case.
Understood it that way first as well. Though there is a solution.
0 fits the bill. It's a positive number. You can move 0 to the front (because just like there's a bunch of zeroes behind the decimal point we don't usually write there's an equal amount of leading zeroes). When doubled the result equals the number if 0 is moved to the front.
Now if we were to limit the problem to strictly positive numbers (i.e. \mathbb {N} _{0} ) then you are correct that there are no solutions.
@@photoo848 in what math dictionary is zero a positive number, its neutral, the only neutral number that exists, sits right at the middle
@@MyNameIsSalo Argument 2: Algebra (theory + exercises)
But since I doubt you're familiar with every math textbook out there I did 2 seconds of sleuthing and found the standard ISO 80000-2 which defines the natural numbers as beginning from 0 (Mac Lane & Birkhoff (1999, p. 15) include zero in the natural numbers)
Putting 0 in |N, a group meant for positive integers means it can't be neutral
In math we made a distinction between |N and |No (index 0) where the former is all natural numbers including 0 while the latter excludes zero.
It's fascinating that there's such a difference in definition possible for such a fundament of mathematics.
I wondered if that was the case and watched the first 30 seconds for clarification, glad I did.
@@photoo848 I haven't seen the notation $N_0$. Generally if the ambiguity is important to the answer of the question, it's considered best practice to refer to either the positive integers {1, 2, 3, ...} or the nonnegative integers {0, 1, 2, ...}.
I haven't dealt with more complicated math in 40+ years. I managed to begin the problem set up properly, but failed to even consider how large the solution might be. (amateur error). Very interesting video. Thanks.
Same for me
Hope everyone is doing good. Sending support and hearts! ❤️❤️❤️ Stay safe
Oh, at first i thought it ment that you have a number and you switch the first with the last digit.
Same here
Same. I was switching the numbers end to end.
I tried this too. Spoiler alert: there isn’t a number that has that property, which is why I was super confused 😂
@@ethanandrews3076 That's pretty much the conclusion I reached as well, but I couldn't figure out how to prove it conclusively.
@@anonygent so you know that the first number and the second number must have the same number of digits. This means the first digit of the number has to be less than 5 (because any number above 4 when doubled will add another digit i.e. 5*2=10, 6*2=12 etc.). Now you know that the first digit is either 4,3,2, or 1.
Now we will try to figure out what the last digit is. We know that any number multiplied by 2 is even. This means the last digit of the second number must be even. Because we get the second number by switching the first and last digits, the first digit of the first number must be even so that the seconds numbers last digit can be even.
This means the first digit of the first number is either 4 or 2 because it can’t be odd. Because we know that the second numbers last digit is either 4 or 2, we will try to see which numbers when multiplied by 2 will give a 4 or a 2 in the last digits place. The numbers are 7, 6, 2, and 1 (7 and 2 have four as their last digit, and 6 and 1 have two). This means that if the first digit is 4, the last digit is 7 or 2, and if the first digit is 2, the last digit is either 6 or 1. With this knowledge, you can get rid of some of the options. If the first digit is 4 and the last digit is 2, when you switch the numbers, you get a smaller number. You can’t multiply something by 2 and get a smaller number. This means it can’t be 4 and 2. The same argument can be made with 2 and 1. This means the two options are 4 and 7, or 2 and 6. If the first digit was 4, when you multiply the number by 2, you would get an 8 as the first digit. There is no way to make the 8 equal 7, so the first digit of the second number will have to be greater than 7.
This means the only possible solution would be if the first digit was 2 and the last digit was 6.
However, there is no number that starts with 2 and ends with 6, and that starts with 6 when you multiply by 2. We know this because to make the number as large as possible, you make the inner digits 9 (the largest digit). If we do this, we find a pattern where the second number is 5 followed by 9’s. 296*2=592 ; 2996*2=5992 ; 29996*2=59992 ; 299996*2=599992. Because the highest possible first digit is less than 6, that means the first digit cannot be 2 and the last digit cannot be 6.
We have gotten rid of all possibilities, meaning it cannot be done.
316-->631
316*2 = 632
Close...
397*2= 794 dhvfjnbg
oof
@@crazierchimp oof indeed
1052=2105
1052*2=2104
109 * 2 = 218
109 -> 910
*close*
This is really impressive, especially the proof that the 18-digit number obtained in the first part of the video is the smallest possible number that would satisfy the conditions.
9:14 Took me some time to understand why the equation could produce a "b" that doesn't work when a = 1.
The reason is that the equation is contingent on the number of digits of b. a=1 works if you accept to write b as a 17 digits numbers, that is to say with a leading 0.
Thank you! I was so confused by a = 1 since it got so close but with an extra 0. Cool that when calculating that b must be 17 digits long included, it includes leading zeros in the solutions.
The number obtained by writing b with a leading zero is smaller than the answer obtained in the video making Presh's answer incorrect.
052,631,578,947,368,421 x 2
105,263,157,894,736,842
Here, the first number has 17 digits whereas the second number has 18. The answer in the video is the same for the 2 methods because in the first method, there is a caveat that the 2 numbers have to have the same number of digits. Presh doesn't consider the possibility of a different number of digits for the 2 numbers, doing which would have yielded the smallest solution.
@@samuelpeter9109 No it does not. The problem is posed in plain English and it is understand that a number is not written with unnecessary leading zeroes. In the same manner that it is understand to be base 10. Just like positive means >0 as this is assumed to be of US origin (0 is positive and negative rather than neither according to some definitions taught in some countries).
Solving a problem includes understanding what the plain language used means depending on the context (in a "trick" context, "1 and 1'' could be 11, in a boolean context it is 1, in pretty much any other, it is 2)
@@philippenachtergal6077 The problem here is that if you use the first method in the video and start with a 1, you'll get this answer directly. It seems to have been completely ignored. The seemingly out of the box thinking is only required for the second method.
But I get what you're saying about there being some implicit rules. Because the question only says that the answer is a positive number, one could play with decimals to get an even smaller number.
0.52631578947368421 x 2
1.05263157894736842
@@samuelpeter9109 Yeah, he glosses over 1 not leading to a solution a bit too quickly. Which is why I wanted to check for myself what was happening :D
MYD: Did you figure this out?
ME: Are You taking the piss??
I made a entire excel sheet gathering formula and developping my intellect just to realise that excel can only go to 15 digits numbers -,-
Yep... which is when I headbutted my way through anyway by writing a program that calculated the formula using long-integers. This does work. (And fun fact, there are 8 17 digit numbers for which this is true, although the mentioned one is the smallest)
But it is lucky/clever that this problem's answer is just out of Excel's reach.
SAME!!!!!!
I did the same formula as his...
Except for the modular thing.
I made a table for digits.... And got excited when when my excel spreadsheet had an integer value at 15 digits...
(although I was suspicious why rest of the numbers are integers as well after it but.... Was blinded by success.)
But alas... My bubble burst when I tried to use its figures but couldn't even able to add one more digit in the end.
SCREW YOU, EXCEL!!!
I WAS THIS CLOSE AT SUCCESS!!!!!!
But I am happy.... My approach was spot on.
Atleast... That's something.
Trick: use Google sheets. The numbers can go as large as you want if you format the cells as a number and extend the cells to easily fit the numbers.
multiplied by 2 will yield same number with last digit moved to first
*******************************
Last digit 1 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 2 105263157894736842
Last digit 3 157894736842105263
Last digit 4 210526315789473684
Last digit 5 263157894736842105
Last digit 6 315789473684210526
Last digit 7 368421052631578947
Last digit 8 421052631578947368
Last digit 9 473684210526315789
multiplied by 3 will yield same number with last digit moved to first
*******************************
Last digit 1 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 2 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 3 1034482758620689655172413793
Last digit 4 1379310344827586206896551724
Last digit 5 1724137931034482758620689655
Last digit 6 2068965517241379310344827586
Last digit 7 2413793103448275862068965517
Last digit 8 2758620689655172413793103448
Last digit 9 3103448275862068965517241379
multiplied by 4 will yield same number with last digit moved to first
*******************************
Last digit 1 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 2 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 3 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 4 102564
Last digit 5 128205
Last digit 6 153846
Last digit 7 179487
Last digit 8 205128
Last digit 9 230769
multiplied by 5 will yield same number with last digit moved to first
*******************************
Last digit 1 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 2 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 3 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 4 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 5 102040816326530612244897959183673469387755
Last digit 6 122448979591836734693877551020408163265306
Last digit 7 142857
Last digit 8 163265306122448979591836734693877551020408
Last digit 9 183673469387755102040816326530612244897959
multiplied by 6 will yield same number with last digit moved to first
*******************************
Last digit 1 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 2 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 3 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 4 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 5 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 6 1016949152542372881355932203389830508474576271186440677966
Last digit 7 1186440677966101694915254237288135593220338983050847457627
Last digit 8 1355932203389830508474576271186440677966101694915254237288
Last digit 9 1525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661016949
multiplied by 7 will yield same number with last digit moved to first
*******************************
Last digit 1 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 2 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 3 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 4 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 5 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 6 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 7 1014492753623188405797
Last digit 8 1159420289855072463768
Last digit 9 1304347826086956521739
multiplied by 8 will yield same number with last digit moved to first
*******************************
Last digit 1 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 2 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 3 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 4 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 5 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 6 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 7 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 8 1012658227848
Last digit 9 1139240506329
multiplied by 9 will yield same number with last digit moved to first
*******************************
Last digit 1 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 2 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 3 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 4 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 5 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 6 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 7 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 8 Calculation exceeded 100 Digit
Last digit 9 10112359550561797752808988764044943820224719
@@sino-atrial_node For all those cases of "Calculation exceeded 100 Digit", there is a simple proof that there is no solution at all:
If the last digit of the solution is lower than the number we multiply with, the product needs to has one digit more. We can't achieve this since we only are rearranging digits and don't add another digit.
How about in binary? 01 becomes 10, In decimal, that is 1 and 2, and 2 is twice 1. It would be best to specify what base you are counting in!
This doesn't really work because 1 in binary is not 01, it's just 1.
@@WriteWordsMakeMagic I disagree. on computers, bits are stored in bytes and words of various lengths. So 01 is a legitimate expression for the value one.
Nice math problem. However, I find the question quite confusing; trying by myself I interpreted it in a few ways. Having this question on a test would have been the end of me!
Take for example 102
Saying the last digit becomes the first digit, it could mean the '2' becomes a '1' -> 101.
It could also mean the last digit simply replaces the first, hence 102 becomes 202.
Or could it mean a swapping of the digits? So for your example, 102 => 201 ? Or just move the right-most digit to be the left-most digit and shift everything down, so 210?
All this channel's riddles are equally ill-defined and vague. The only real riddle in every case is to understand the rules of the riddle. Once you've figured out what the rules are, the solution is usually trivial. You may find here in the comments someone who recognized for this problem that no base was specified, so he chose base 2 and then the solution was extremely trivial 01 => 10 is a doubling in base 2!
@@sststr I just tried to solve the problem with the assumption that the first and last digits were supposed to be swapped, and ended up proving that no such number can exist.
If 2[Bxxxxx...A] is set to equal [Axxxxxx...B], then B can't = 0 because the digit count would be different. B has to be even because 2*n is always even. And B can't be 5 or greater because then the double of the original number would have an extra digit (1) tacked on in front. So B must be 2 or 4.
A must > B , or else [Bxxxxx...A] would be larger than [Axxxxx...B]. Actually, A >= 2B, because any number plus itself will see its first digit at least double (if the digit count is conserved). But if A is merely double B, then every digit position of [Axxxxxx...B] must be twice the digit in the corresponding position in [Bxxxxxx...A], which can't be the case because all the x digits must be conserved respective to that position (and also because B would have to be twice A, but we know A>B). So A must = 2B+1.
But since B is at least 2, and A is 2B+1, A is at least 5. And you can't multiply a number ending in a digit of n >=5 by 2 without changing the value of the tenths place digit (which would have to be 0) in the resulting product. Therefore, no number can double itself merely via swapping its first and last digits.
Edit: actually that last paragraph isn't exactly true, since an endless stream of 9s would satisfy the relation because 9x2 +1 = 19, but then you'd run into a contradiction once the string of 9s stops.
I agree. I thought it was the latter interpretation and reasoned that the number must be a multiple of 10, as any other number doubled would change the last digit. Without messing around with different bases, there is no solution to this interpretation (I think).
That's why with these videos, I always watch a bit of the video first to make sure I understand the problem. Even if that means watching the first few seconds of the solution where he sets it up. No spoilers, just clarification on what we're looking for.
@@shawncowden3909 I tried the same thing, and came to the same conclusion.
I didn't understand the specific mechanism by which the last digit became the first until you showed that 25/52, but after that I came up with the same solution as in the video, and did it to all digits>2, which all get 18 digit numbers of the same pattern. So cool
Except when you word the question incorrectly by neglecting to mention that the first digit becomes the last, so the answer actually is 12.
Wouldn't zero work?
Edit: Just noticed the top comment.
The question asks for a positive number :P
@@maniratnagubba7756 1 maybe, yes
0 is positive. The smallest one.
@@geometry1249 If you consider 0 positive then it can be negative too which leads to a contradiction that positive = negative
Theseas Socratous no it cannot be “negative too” the negative is determined by its sign before the actual number and -0 doesn’t exist. Zero is always positive
How is the solver supposed to know that "becomes" implies move, and not copy or swap?
because 'becomes the first' does not in any way imply copy or swap(1 year later)
The question does in fact, underspecify the operation in this problem.
You could make "the last digit become the first" by:
1. cyclically permuting the entire string of digits one position to the right
2. swapping the first and last digits
3. reversing the entire string of digits
or any other permutation of the digits that results in the last digit winding up in front, but these three ways are the most likely interpretations.
And while I agree that "becomes the first" doesn't mean that final digit is copied, leaving the original in place; I contend that it could very well mean swapping it with the last.
Although if that were meant, it should be stated with, "and the last becomes first." Which in turn, still admits both interpretations 2 & 3.
Yet another illustration why precision of statement is essential in mathematics.
Not sure whether interpretations 2 & 3 have solutions. Other than 0, that is, which works for all 3.
Curiously, all 3 interpretations are the same for 2-digit numbers.
For 3-digit numbers, interpretations 2 & 3 are the same, but different from #1.
For numbers of 4 or more digits, all 3 interpretations are different.
Fred
@@ffggddss Another interpretation: the last digit becomes (the same as) the first digit. So 2nnnn4 becomes 2nnnn2
Or nnnn42. or nnnn2. 'becomes' is not a mathematical function. It suggests a change over time, which is not what mathematical functions inherently do.(Yes, you can integrate over a time function, but that is not the same thing at all).
'Move the last digit to the front' is so much clearer, in the same number of words...
@@spyseefan975 It does not imply move either. 'Becomes' is a time based translation. A caterpillar becomes a butterfly. No movement required.
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop it does imply move, because if it becomes the first, it can no longer be the last, because then it would be two things at once.(when the number is bigger than 1 digit)
'also becomes the first' would be necessary for that.
Why doesn’t math learn to solve its own problems. I learned to solve mine.
😁😁LoL
Math solves mine for me, so I am returning the favour
Best reply
Lol
Programming!
Lmao I only watched the thumbnail and I thought it meant that the last would become the first, but the first would remain the same, so like 25 would become 22, and I thought it was impossible
I have to agree with some other commenters. The phrase "the last digit becomes the first digit" doesn't really imply a swapping of the positions. Going by this wording, the process could be....
Take 25, if the last digit becomes the first digit it becomes 55, not 52. 12345 becomes 52345, not 51234.
That's why he provides two examples making absolutely clear what he means.
If he made up the question, that's fine. He has, as it were, artistic license. But if this is just his interpretation of the answer, I just wanted to let him know that the question is not as clear as he (and I'm guessing you as well) seem to think it is. If what he means is that the last digit of the number is moved to the front of the number, then he can say that, not that it "becomes the first digit".
Check out his sources in the video description. The problem itself is well defined. I agree that his wording is ambiguous but the examples are not.
Questions are important, and by that I mean what words we use. How you ask a question will change the answer you get. If you think the problem is well defined but the question isn't, then I'm going to have to thank you for proving my point. The question itself must be well defined if it's going to lead to the answer given. That you can see there is some ambiguity in the question, I think we can agree it would be better to get rid of that ambiguity rather than argue between you and I about what answer might come from the question as it's actually posed.
Why do you only focus on the written wording? The examples are part of the video as much as the written text and what he says. Considering everything, there is NO ambiguity like you try to point out in your initial comment. That's all I wanted to say.
If you don't like that the written question alone does not accurately present the problem, that's fine. But saying it can be misunderstood, without taking the rest of the video into account, seems unfair to me.
In binary system (0,1).. Used in digital electronics.
0 is 00
1 is 01
2 is 10
3 is 11
In 2 digit format.
So if 1 is represented as 01
And right digit becomes left one 10 will be yielded. That is 2 in decimal.
So, Boom
I don't get it at all but you get a like because you sounded genius
But that includes leading zeros, so 01=001, and 001 becomes 100, which is not 10. That’s the problem with including leading zeros.
in python: print(bin(2*0b01)) = 0b10
@@vibaj16 he's talking binary dude not leading zeros
.1 ?
Fairly certain this isn't a riddle.
It's a maths problem....
Fairly Certain it doesn't say riddle in the title
Audible Magician Fairly certain you are a moron... The title is, 'What Positive Number Doubles When The Last Digit Moves To The First Digit? Riddle For "Geniuses"'.
the answer is 1, use common sense not the algebra he showed
@@justinc2633 1 * 2 = 2....
It is a maths riddle.
The way the question is worded doesn't say anything about what happens to the other digits... only that the last digit becomes the first digit. By that reasoning, even 12 works. 12 * 2 = 24, so the 2 has moved from the last digit to the first.
Yes it does. It should equal the new number when the last digit is put in front if the original number was doubled. So 12=21 when swapping last number to 1st. Now does 21 equal 12x2? No it does not. That's how you read it.
0.
0x2=0
0 is first digit & last digit.
Problem solved
Positive
+0
0 is neither positive nor negative
Thus your answer is wrong
Lol
@@dyson_sphere nahh
@@nowonmetube What do you mean ?
The problem with this is that there are so many interpretations of the question. Does the first digit change into the last digit? Vice versa? Does the last digit physically move to the first digit and move every other digit over one place? Because of this ambiguity AND the fact that in all interpretations, 0 is the correct answer, I really feel that 0 should be the only acceptable answer.
My 1st interpretation: first and last number change places.
My 2nd interpretation: last number stays, first number changes and becomes last number also
My 3rd interpretation was finally right. Then I started the video and he explained it in the beginning.
Don't know if non-positive-numbers were accepted in previous versions. But now the title explicitly says "positive", so zero ist out.
Which is why I used to hate pure maths tests, because they can be interpreted a number of ways and some dont specify much.
@@Freestylefisch I went through the *exact* same process.
0 is not an answer because 0 is not a positive number
But you can't move over zero unless it's 00 and that's: cheating☺️
My first answer:
49.999~ * 2 = 99.999~
He said the last digit will become the new first digit, but not that the other digits are moved forward, so the old first digit is overwritten
He also said even number
@@TechAllByHarshit He said whole number
Even if you were allowed non integer numbers this wouldn't work... He gave the example of 102 becoming 210 so your number would go from 49.9999... to 94.9999...
12x2=24 lol
He never said it was a whole number. Nor did he say it was even. Plus, you cant talk about parity with fractions.
What about 12? When it doubles the last one becomes the first
That's not how it works when the last digit becomes the first all the other digits stay the same in order
We might also "SUSPECT" that it has to be an even number?
I'm out.
good video, clever algebra gone through in an understandable and easy to follow way.
This is the type of content I enjoy on your channel -- but I think you should remove the clickbait part of the title (the 'Riddle for "Geniunses" ')
That way it can't be confused with your 'viral problem' videos and the like based on just the title.
mrBorkD Viral problems are usually very easy or not clear, or have 2 solutions. For a problem to go viral it needs to have an answer that splits people into 2 or more groups that try to prove each other wrong.
Helgii A
I'm not sure you understood what I meant with my comment.
My complaint is that this video, which is NOT a viral/easy/uninteresting problem, is using the same type of clickbait title for it, whereas I'd think it to be a good idea to distinguish the two types of videos better.
idk why I thought it was gonna be simple
This one really had me thinking... after 25 minutes I gave up and I’m kinda happy I did😅 would be here for a loooooong time counting otherwise..
usually i dont post when i solve riddles on youtube but this time i m a little bit proud on solving this at 3 am in the morning when i allready should have been in bed for hours. i found the exact same number by nearly the same way i had 19a=(10^(n-1)-2)b sory youtube is not the best place to write down formulas. then used the modula funktion of my calculator to find it out it out. Thank you for the nice problem and sorry for my bad english its not my first language.
tassay still some decent grammar.
Kazakh?
Omg ur calculator does module
My guess is 105263157894736842
Aarex Tiaokhiao lol
Me too, rather obvious.
It is just simple.
Yea I thought of that immediately.
that's the trivial case luckily
I saw the thumbnail and decided to try this myself before watching. I ended up finding a generalized solution for if the number should become N times larger. You take the recurring decimal of 1/(10N-1) and shift its last digit into the first position. This works for every N unless it is a power of 10, in which case the number doesn't exist.
Wow, ya.
I like that.
Hope everyone is doing good. Sending support and hearts! ❤️❤️❤️ Stay safe
12 (×) 2 = 24
12 -> 24
I think this is the smallest number
I agree with you. This is what I understood. Why not 12??
But you've misunderstood the question. If you move the 2 to the front of 12, you get 21, which is not 12 doubled.
I kinda had the steps in my mind figured out but I realized it was long and got lazy and just skipped over to see if my method was right; not if I had the right answer because I never answered it anyway...
i think in math the real problem is how you do, not the correct answer. if you know the metod you only need time, if time is a problem you can use calculator, if you don't know the metod to find the answer you an't find the answer never, if you use brutal force to resolve this type of problem you life time is not enought to resolve the problem, i do the same exat thing you do, when i find it will be a 18 digit number i just stop
I do that all the time
You didn't specify in the problem description that the other digits in the number have to shift backwards one place, just that the last digit becomes the first digit. Remove the requirement of the other digits shifting backwards and 12 becomes the smallest positive number (Double 12 and you get 24, where the 2 goes from the last digit to the first digit).
Me: Oh this is fairly simple, It's just gonna be a 2 digit answer
**Tries every 2 digit number**
Me: Maybe I'll look at the answer and try to understand the math
**Sees the answer**
Me: Nope, abort mission, ABORT ABORT!!
I think I got it. I did some algebra and figured out what the ratio of the last digit and the rest of the number would look like, which is something like (10^n-2)/19, and basically since the last digit can't be divisible by 19, I kept trying larger powers of ten until I found an integer. That integer was 5263157894736842. 52631578947368421 wouldn't quite work as a solution though, so I tried multiples of 5263157894736842, and just by doubling it I found an answer: 105263157894736842.
Posting this before I finished watching, but I hope that's the right answer.
Well done
Cool you did it
..i got upto 19 | 10^n-2 ..😕(divisible by 19)
good job
The way I did the modular arithmetic I branched off at the point 19b = (10^m - 2)a so that I had:
10^m - 2 ≡ 0 (mod 19)
10^m ≡ 2 (mod 19)
2^m*10^m ≡ 2^m*2 (mod 19) (see note)
20^m ≡ 2^(m+1) (mod 19)
1^m ≡ 2^(m+1) (mod 19)
2^(m+1) ≡ 1 (mod 19)
so by Fermat's Little Theorem (a^(p-1) ≡ 1 (mod p)) we have the exponent m+1= 18*k for any integer k>0; in particular, m=17.
Note:
I found that 2^17 ≡ 2^-1 ≡ 10 (mod 19) by taking powers of 2 modulo 19 which is how I knew that 2*10 ≡ 1 (mod 19). Since 2 is smaller than 10 I could take the powers in my head rather than having to use a calculator.
2^4 ≡ 16 ≡ -3 (mod 19)
2^8 ≡ (-3)^2 ≡ 9 ≡ -10 (mod 19)
2^9 ≡ 2^8*2 ≡ 9*2 ≡ 18 ≡ -1 (mod 19)
2^17 ≡ 2^8*2^9 ≡ (-10)*(-1) ≡ 10 (mod 19)
i know i'm 1 year late, but every time i see those nice and clever modular arithmetics like the one u did here, i have to admire it
they never occur to my mind, never, so every time i have to do big modular calculations, in this case 10^m mod 19.
the only comment that actually improved MYD's solution
This is the real answer
You did modular magic; sir 🍻 👏...this shift from 10^n to 2^n never occured to me
I got to the point where I realized I need 10^x = 2 mod 19 and “screw it, I’m not going through the rest of this.”
This never said the number had to be an integer...
There is no non integer solution
There is actually a non-integer solution. A number such as .10526315789436842 would become .21052631578943684 if either it were multiplied by 2 or if the last digit were moved to the place of the first digit. That's obviously a smaller number even though it's a bit of a cheesy solution.
wouldn't .10526315789436842 technically be 2.1052631578943684, since all decimals are represented as 0.2345678 and so on?
Or you just completely take away the decimal and get the actual answer
whole numbers are just positive integers plus 0
Bro I spent over an hour trying to write a program to test each individual number. When I tested up to 50,000 I figured I didn't write it right, then I gave up and realized I never would have thought to test that high lol.
That was fascinating, and I think a little beyond my reach (I stopped when I realised I'd need to use a computer). More like this, please!
No need for a computer. You can do it by hand.
1... in binary
But 1 * 10 = 10. And the shift is 1 -> 1.
But it's with one leading zero :)
Oekanos where is it stated that it cant have a leading zero? hence leading zeros are standard in binary
I was replying to MrDiarukia. Answering your question - well, I think that if we're honest we can clearly see that this is not what the person giving the problem meant :)
supr guy the leading zeros in binary are only present in computer field. The binary numbers as such have no leading zeros
You forgot to mention that works because 19 is prime, which implies it has to be a factor of one of the terms. Or else it could just be a combination of smaller factors from several terms in the numerator.
“Did you figure this out??” I have a feeling Presh is beeing sarcastic with this one..
MindYourDecisions: what positive nu...
Me: 11
No
11×2 doesn't equal 11 though
At first I thought of zero, but then saw the video was about 10+ minutes and immediately scrapped zero as an answer.
When you change the Riddle from doubling (x2) to x5, then you get a smaller solution:
142857x5=714285
Check this out:
1/7=0.142857 (repeated)
5/7=0.714285 (repeated)
I think that's where you got that from.
@@resoltion Exactly, because of x5 and in base 10 you take 5*10 -1 = 49 = 7^2 . Then you find the development of 1/7 ... with x2 and in base 10 you take 2*10 -1 = 19. And the solution proposed is the development of 1/19 If you take x3, the solution will probably be in the development of 1/29 which is still longer ...
Now I want the guy to read the answer in German and I am giving this man all my money
I can't believe we have to "resort to" 2/19 and 4/19.
I am so glad I misunderstood the question from thumbnail.. because I feel better for failing to identify an answer.
"Can yo figure it out? Give it a try!"
This earns a special place on the top 10 anime betrayals
@@toatrika2443 true
I thought with ' the lastbecomes the first digit' as in 25 ---> 22 😂😂ripppp
And I thought it meant the last digit is copied into the place of the first, so 25->55. This puzzle is terribly formulated.
Kabitu1 I thought so too.
I thought the first and last digit would swap places, so 102 would become 201 and not 210
Robb V. I thought so too and still came up with zero
Damien W Yea it's a good one but I was really trying for a 2 digits or more number.
«Did you figure this out?”....and as usual NO 🤣
I thought I was close when I thought 24, and was like, “42, almost,”
The original description doesn't mention anything about shifting the remaining digits, so I was like...12? 24. 2 went from last to first and number doubled. Et voila.
That's what I thought as well
speedbump0619 I thought the same of 12. The original question is too contrived.
@@speedbump0619 I don't get the confusion. Put the last digit at the start and then check if its double
@Superscalar Processor I read it as replace the first digit with the last digit such that 12=>22. It took me about 10 minutes to realize it was impossible this way.
Here I was fumbling around with simple 2 and 4 digit numbers in my head and wasn't even in the same solar system
Funny story: my mind was set on resolving this by bruteforcing it. Getting the answer was a race between the program I started and the video that resumed. Just one small problem: my program would have only taken a lot more than 761 thousands of years, so I guess it wasn't a race at all 😅
When you say "the last digit becomes the first digit", in my head it was implicit that the number has to have at least two digits. So why should 0 be a solution?! Am I wrong?
If you have a race with 1 person, let's call him x, and someone asks: who's the first one in the race? You answer "x", same goes for who's last, it's also "x"
@@xXJ4FARGAMERXx So you are not really having a race... just running by yourself. That proves more my point.
I think its because zero can be represented as 00, 00000, 0000000....... without changing the value the same cant be said for other positive or negative number so. So you can say 00 and put the last digit(the zero) in front you still get 00 and 00 is 00 double. It simplifies to zero since its the same value.
Zero is not truly positive.
The smallest number is 0 because 0 x 2 = 0. As well as that, 00 (0) if the last digit is swapped around u still get 00 (0).
But we are trying to find smallest *positive* number and 0 is neither positive or negative so your statement is false
a has to be at least two. After doubling a number the first digit can only be 1 when the result is longer. In fact the 17 digit number would work if a leading zero were allowed, and then its just a circular shift. Other solutions can be generated from the 18 digit solution by circular shifts such that the first digit is
1 in Binary doubled = 10.
BAM!
The first answer that came to my mind was 01 in base 2. Left shifting a 1 by 1 place in base 2 doubles it and the problem didn't specify base 10. So MY lowest number is 01mod2. ^.^
mod≠base
You don't write 01 or 001 but 1
If anyone was wondering, the smallest possible number which becomes tripled when the last digit is moved to the front is 1034482758620689655172413793
Well, at least I set up the algebra equation correctly XD
Same 👍
Imagine This question coming in JEE Advanced +_+
😳
Rip
There would be 4 options, use trial and error😂
@@amitparmar5186 imagine it comes as a numerical type 😵
@@nek742 fucked then
I understood the problem wrong, i thought something like "given two digits, find the value of each digit such that if you swap them the resulting number is twice as large"
With like 10 minutes scratching my head of how no 4 or 5 digit (or less) number could satisfy the solution, no Presh, I been stoomped.
Actually, the right answer is 01, which the double of 10.
No one ever told that binary was cheating.
2*0 = 0 change my mind
I thought of the same thing lol (sorry this is a 1 year old reply)
@@Peypug Bruh, I love when people do that. It reminds me of the kind of videos I used to watch long ago.
Here I read it as the first and last digit swapping places while all numbers in between remain the same...needless to say, couldn't find a solution to that.
"This *is* the answer"
Also: "Zero would work"
I don't get it
Wow I read the text completely wrong. "If the last digit becomes the first digit..." so I was changing a number like 82 to 88, or 604 to 606. I wasn't moving the digit, I was changing it.
It's 12 eazy peezy
I mean, you aren't wrong.
Question is not clear. Do you remove or copy the last digit and put it at the front replacing or preceding the existing first digit?
I was studying for math exam and I want a take a break, then I find myself here lol
4:58 And here I was trying to count through the numbers until I reached the answer
"What positive number doubles when its last digit becomes its first digit?"
Ans: 0
0 is not a positive number
What about 25, it’s a positive number and double becomes 50.
Come to kerala..i would give u a present.
Could the answer be 0??
As we can write 0 = 00
and 2x0 = 0
So.. is it possible?
Yo..... I swear I got this right... I know nobody is going to notice nor is anybody caring about it but I got this right.... I am proud of myself okay... That doesn't happen that often especially in mathematics.
I care. Congrats :)
@@malcom91 , I care, too !! CONGRATS is too small a word to express my praises for you !!!!!
Wow, I didn't expect that. thank you *-*
YOOO i totally blanked on carrying over the second digit for the 2 digit products, so i ended up solving it the same way you did it for the proof
The question didn't specify that you were moving the digits around, only that when you double the number, the last digit is the first digit. I instantly thought 12 as the smallest natural number, because double of 12 is 24, and 2 is the last digit of the first and first digit of the last.
Probably a technicality, or a trivial solution though.
There is a parallelism to inverted numbers: Any primary number p>5 requires p-1 digits.
12 maybe
12*2=24
I dunno
thats 9+10
@@AbirInsights wHaTs nInE pLus TeEn? ( btw i know u only use one "e" but he sounded like he would be saying teen, and not ten)
I guess 12 (becomes 24)
I would have thought of 25 becoming 50, because there was no mention on what happens to the first number, only that the last number becomes the first number.
I got about half way there using the algebraic method, but solution was hidden from me by brain fog. I bailed when I saw how large the number would have to be, thinking mine couldn't be the right answer.
I don't get why at 1:47 we might suspect, that it has to be an even number. Since with the base 5 we would get 13 as a solution (2×13=31), why wouldn't it be possible to have an odd number as a solution in the decimal system?
That was super easy. I dont get how people struggle with this.
a=1 is a solution but you have to look at the no. with my eyes. You put a zero before the 5 and when you shift 1 before 0, voilla you have the double