Talk:Narcissistic number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • These examples shouldn't have links, since they are base 3 and 4 numbers but the links are to base 10 numbers and so are meaningless --206.171.6.11 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Some base three Armstrong numbers are: 0,1,2,12,122
    • Some base four Armstrong numbers are: 0,1,2,3,313

Contents

[edit] Open question?

The article says:

However, it is not known if the only base 10 numbers equal to the sum of the cubes of their digits are 1, 153, 370, 371, and 407.

Surely this is untrue? The sum of the cubes of the digits of n cannot exceed 93·log(n). But this quantity is far smaller than n when n is bigger than, say, 106. And a simple brute-force search should take care of all smaller numbers. -- Dominus 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it is untrue. The comment at [1] says essentially the same thing. I have removed the mistaken assertion from the article. -- Dominus 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is biggest such number?

Since there are a finite number of such numbers, what is the biggest such number?

[edit] "Plus perfect" vs "pluperfect"

Hi - I just reverted a well-meant edit, that was seemingly correcting "pluperfect" to "plus perfect". My revert was based solely on primary source publications known to me ... actually, only two primary sources: http://www.geocities.com/~harveyh/narciss.htm and http://www.deimel.org/rec_math/DI_3.htm -- if there are other primary sources using a different term, I'd be glad to reconsider. Until then, I see the term "plusperfect" or "plus perfect" only in secondary or tertiary debates, which are non-original and therefore a possible misnomer. Comments? Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4150

Silly question here, but couldn't it be argued that 04150 is a narcissistic number, and because 04150 = 4150, the latter is also narcissistic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.206.147 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)