[seqfan] Re: Balanced numbers
M. F. Hasler
oeis at hasler.fr
Sat Mar 14 12:58:01 CET 2015
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Eric Angelini <Eric.Angelini at kntv.be> wrote:
> Hello SeqFans,
> We look here for "balanced" integers
> that are _not_ palindromic.
> S =
> 1933 is "balanced" because the two halves
> of 1933 have the same weight:
> 19=33 when (1x3/2)+(9x1/2)=(3x1/2)+(3x3/2)
Proposed as https://oeis.org/draft/A256075
> There is of course an infinite number
> of "balanced" integers (as 1933, for
> instance, can be extended to 119331, or 619336, etc.)
One could call "primitive" balanced numbers which are not of the form
> If S is an interesting seq, why not
> compute T, the "balanced primes" seq?
This is proposed as https://oeis.org/draft/A256076
The same can be done for other bases, e.g. in base 2:
70 = 1000110 is balanced because
1*3 = 1*1 + 1*2
We see that only the 10-th non-palindromic balanced number is odd, and
the same is true in base 2 (but neither in base 3
(87,96,105,137,146,155,169,178,...) nor in base 4
> [BTW is there a 10-digit balanced
> integer with no repeated digit?]
It seems that there is no such number !
The least 1-9 pandigital balanced number seems to be 137986542.
More information about the SeqFan