Long digital sequence. 16xxxxxxxxxxxxx61Hidden Number SequenceCoke alphameticNumber-sequence puzzle where the number goes down in the middleWhat is the next integer in this sequence?The Generic Number Sequence PuzzleMy twin was born 16 days before me. Who am I?Can you find this abundant dad and his six prime sons?Ladies and Gentlemen…Please count your cards. Can you beat our prime dealers at our Cryptic Casino to earn some cold cash?Join the Fun at Jack’s Casino to get a shot at JackpotAfter seeing my 16xxxx16 sequence puzzle, my Younger sibling wants to get into the act and give a little puzzle of his own

How would a physicist explain this starship engine?

JavaScript: Access 'this' when calling function stored in variable

(For training purposes) Are there any openings with rook pawns that are more effective than others (and if so, what are they)?

Efficient Algorithms for Destroyed Document Reconstruction

"Official wife" or "Formal wife"?

How did the Allies achieve air superiority on Sicily?

Computing elements of a 1000 x 60 matrix exhausts RAM

What defines a person who is circumcised "of the heart"?

To exponential digit growth and beyond!

Why is Ni[(PPh₃)₂Cl₂] tetrahedral?

csname in newenviroment

Can diplomats be allowed on the flight deck of a commercial European airline?

Real Analysis: Proof of the equivalent definitions of the derivative.

Variable does not Exist: CaseTrigger

How many wires should be in a new thermostat cable?

Is there an idiom that means that you are in a very strong negotiation position in a negotiation?

Department head said that group project may be rejected. How to mitigate?

Why do testers need root cause analysis?

Writing "hahaha" versus describing the laugh

VHDL: Why is it hard to design a floating point unit in hardware?

Why do the i8080 I/O instructions take a byte-sized operand to determine the port?

Why is the reciprocal used in fraction division?

Split into three!

Keeping the dodos out of the field



Long digital sequence. 16xxxxxxxxxxxxx61


Hidden Number SequenceCoke alphameticNumber-sequence puzzle where the number goes down in the middleWhat is the next integer in this sequence?The Generic Number Sequence PuzzleMy twin was born 16 days before me. Who am I?Can you find this abundant dad and his six prime sons?Ladies and Gentlemen…Please count your cards. Can you beat our prime dealers at our Cryptic Casino to earn some cold cash?Join the Fun at Jack’s Casino to get a shot at JackpotAfter seeing my 16xxxx16 sequence puzzle, my Younger sibling wants to get into the act and give a little puzzle of his own













8












$begingroup$


Find the digital key and very simple method to unlock the long digital sequence 16xxxxxx61



Additional clues: Eeryday one clue will be given till problem is solved



Day 1: Bounty



Day 2: My code is much simpler than my twin and my dad’s



Day 3: Our dad’s dear departed siblings a decade older had 3 digit codes.



Day 4: I am fuming mad.I have to get this right out of my chest before I can think with cool head and give you right hints. Close by Cryptic Casino closed their doors forever for us right on the opening night. We are lodging complaint to their madam manager and her assistant Adam. If they don’t reverse their decision, I think we have the right to appeal to the Carlson Casino Commission. I cannot think right now..see you in 12 hrs or so.



Day 4-5: I thought over day 4 post and I have given tons of clues inadvertently. Look at my recent puzzle posts for further clues.Reread the puzzle..none of the answers are equal to my sequence. See you in 12 hrs



Day 5: Divide and conquer is not always the best strategy for all occasions



Day 6: Some of my younger siblings have ridiculously easy codes.



Day 7: None of the answers given upto now are not yet right. Did you have a chance to visit Cryptic and Jack’s Casinos yet. You can have some fun and get some valuable clues too.



Day 8: Last day for any further clues...We have come to the end of the clue road. Since I haven’t seen the right sequence yet, I will leave you with parting words from wise grand dad whom I was very fond of...



Be bold and just don’t go on the beaten path. Make the right decision...take the right path to get the right result. Good luck in your further endeavors!!!



X s shown are for illustrative for missing digits and there are lot more x s than shown. All of the missing digits can be..0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and each of them occur at least twice in the series.



Solution should show the digital code number and the specific method used to construct the sequence using the following clues.




I am middle aged bike rider still in prime shape. I have twin like older brother who is couple of years older than me. We both are cryptographers who love to play with fractions and our digital signatures consisting of long sequences that are closely tied to our age and a tad shorter than our ages. Since my signature is closely tied to the reciprocal of my age, I can recall the entire sequence mentally using the key and simple method.

We are special family of 9 who are in prime shape and none of us have hit the century mark yet.











share|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    8












    $begingroup$


    Find the digital key and very simple method to unlock the long digital sequence 16xxxxxx61



    Additional clues: Eeryday one clue will be given till problem is solved



    Day 1: Bounty



    Day 2: My code is much simpler than my twin and my dad’s



    Day 3: Our dad’s dear departed siblings a decade older had 3 digit codes.



    Day 4: I am fuming mad.I have to get this right out of my chest before I can think with cool head and give you right hints. Close by Cryptic Casino closed their doors forever for us right on the opening night. We are lodging complaint to their madam manager and her assistant Adam. If they don’t reverse their decision, I think we have the right to appeal to the Carlson Casino Commission. I cannot think right now..see you in 12 hrs or so.



    Day 4-5: I thought over day 4 post and I have given tons of clues inadvertently. Look at my recent puzzle posts for further clues.Reread the puzzle..none of the answers are equal to my sequence. See you in 12 hrs



    Day 5: Divide and conquer is not always the best strategy for all occasions



    Day 6: Some of my younger siblings have ridiculously easy codes.



    Day 7: None of the answers given upto now are not yet right. Did you have a chance to visit Cryptic and Jack’s Casinos yet. You can have some fun and get some valuable clues too.



    Day 8: Last day for any further clues...We have come to the end of the clue road. Since I haven’t seen the right sequence yet, I will leave you with parting words from wise grand dad whom I was very fond of...



    Be bold and just don’t go on the beaten path. Make the right decision...take the right path to get the right result. Good luck in your further endeavors!!!



    X s shown are for illustrative for missing digits and there are lot more x s than shown. All of the missing digits can be..0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and each of them occur at least twice in the series.



    Solution should show the digital code number and the specific method used to construct the sequence using the following clues.




    I am middle aged bike rider still in prime shape. I have twin like older brother who is couple of years older than me. We both are cryptographers who love to play with fractions and our digital signatures consisting of long sequences that are closely tied to our age and a tad shorter than our ages. Since my signature is closely tied to the reciprocal of my age, I can recall the entire sequence mentally using the key and simple method.

    We are special family of 9 who are in prime shape and none of us have hit the century mark yet.











    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      8












      8








      8


      2



      $begingroup$


      Find the digital key and very simple method to unlock the long digital sequence 16xxxxxx61



      Additional clues: Eeryday one clue will be given till problem is solved



      Day 1: Bounty



      Day 2: My code is much simpler than my twin and my dad’s



      Day 3: Our dad’s dear departed siblings a decade older had 3 digit codes.



      Day 4: I am fuming mad.I have to get this right out of my chest before I can think with cool head and give you right hints. Close by Cryptic Casino closed their doors forever for us right on the opening night. We are lodging complaint to their madam manager and her assistant Adam. If they don’t reverse their decision, I think we have the right to appeal to the Carlson Casino Commission. I cannot think right now..see you in 12 hrs or so.



      Day 4-5: I thought over day 4 post and I have given tons of clues inadvertently. Look at my recent puzzle posts for further clues.Reread the puzzle..none of the answers are equal to my sequence. See you in 12 hrs



      Day 5: Divide and conquer is not always the best strategy for all occasions



      Day 6: Some of my younger siblings have ridiculously easy codes.



      Day 7: None of the answers given upto now are not yet right. Did you have a chance to visit Cryptic and Jack’s Casinos yet. You can have some fun and get some valuable clues too.



      Day 8: Last day for any further clues...We have come to the end of the clue road. Since I haven’t seen the right sequence yet, I will leave you with parting words from wise grand dad whom I was very fond of...



      Be bold and just don’t go on the beaten path. Make the right decision...take the right path to get the right result. Good luck in your further endeavors!!!



      X s shown are for illustrative for missing digits and there are lot more x s than shown. All of the missing digits can be..0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and each of them occur at least twice in the series.



      Solution should show the digital code number and the specific method used to construct the sequence using the following clues.




      I am middle aged bike rider still in prime shape. I have twin like older brother who is couple of years older than me. We both are cryptographers who love to play with fractions and our digital signatures consisting of long sequences that are closely tied to our age and a tad shorter than our ages. Since my signature is closely tied to the reciprocal of my age, I can recall the entire sequence mentally using the key and simple method.

      We are special family of 9 who are in prime shape and none of us have hit the century mark yet.











      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Find the digital key and very simple method to unlock the long digital sequence 16xxxxxx61



      Additional clues: Eeryday one clue will be given till problem is solved



      Day 1: Bounty



      Day 2: My code is much simpler than my twin and my dad’s



      Day 3: Our dad’s dear departed siblings a decade older had 3 digit codes.



      Day 4: I am fuming mad.I have to get this right out of my chest before I can think with cool head and give you right hints. Close by Cryptic Casino closed their doors forever for us right on the opening night. We are lodging complaint to their madam manager and her assistant Adam. If they don’t reverse their decision, I think we have the right to appeal to the Carlson Casino Commission. I cannot think right now..see you in 12 hrs or so.



      Day 4-5: I thought over day 4 post and I have given tons of clues inadvertently. Look at my recent puzzle posts for further clues.Reread the puzzle..none of the answers are equal to my sequence. See you in 12 hrs



      Day 5: Divide and conquer is not always the best strategy for all occasions



      Day 6: Some of my younger siblings have ridiculously easy codes.



      Day 7: None of the answers given upto now are not yet right. Did you have a chance to visit Cryptic and Jack’s Casinos yet. You can have some fun and get some valuable clues too.



      Day 8: Last day for any further clues...We have come to the end of the clue road. Since I haven’t seen the right sequence yet, I will leave you with parting words from wise grand dad whom I was very fond of...



      Be bold and just don’t go on the beaten path. Make the right decision...take the right path to get the right result. Good luck in your further endeavors!!!



      X s shown are for illustrative for missing digits and there are lot more x s than shown. All of the missing digits can be..0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and each of them occur at least twice in the series.



      Solution should show the digital code number and the specific method used to construct the sequence using the following clues.




      I am middle aged bike rider still in prime shape. I have twin like older brother who is couple of years older than me. We both are cryptographers who love to play with fractions and our digital signatures consisting of long sequences that are closely tied to our age and a tad shorter than our ages. Since my signature is closely tied to the reciprocal of my age, I can recall the entire sequence mentally using the key and simple method.

      We are special family of 9 who are in prime shape and none of us have hit the century mark yet.








      mathematics knowledge number-sequence no-computers






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited May 17 at 2:08







      Uvc

















      asked May 8 at 10:31









      UvcUvc

      78513




      78513




















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          18












          $begingroup$


          The numbers $59$ and $61$ are a pair of twin primes ("in prime shape. I have twin like older brother").
          $$frac159 = 0.0169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661016949...$$
          This reciprocal ("reciprocal of my age") has a repeating section of $58$ digits ("tad shorter than our ages"), which apart from the leading zero starts with $16$ and ends with $61$. A number $p$ whose reciprocal has a period of $p-1$ is necessarily prime, and called a full reptend prime. The repeated sequence of digits of length $p-1$ is a cyclic number ("bike rider"). There are 9 full reptend primes ("family of 9") under $100$ ("none of us have hit the century mark yet"), namely $7$, $17$, $19$, $23$, $29$, $47$, $59$, $61$, and $97$.




          So the answer is




          $169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661$




          I am not sure I have found the intended "key" and generating method, but one possible method is the following.




          Presumably it has to depend on the fact that the sequence of digits is a cyclic number. This means that if you multiply it by any number between $1$ and $p-1$ you get the same digits, except cyclically rotated. It happens that multiplying by 9 gives you the same sequence starting 5 digits further on. So what you could do is memorise a key of the first five digits, and calculate the rest. Multiplying by 9 is easily done by multiplying by 10 and subtracting once.

          The method is then as follows:

          Write the key $16949$ twice, the bottom one shifted one digit to the right.


           16949
          16949
          ------ -
          1525...



          You subtract from left to right, and then append the digits you found to continue the subtraction:
           169491525
          169491525
          ---------- -
          152542372...




          Doing the subtraction left to right is a bit unusual but not too hard, as you only need to look ahead one or two digits to check for carries. With a little practice you could write down the answer directly, just once instead of three times like I do here.

          Another useful property is that the second half of a cyclic number is the nines complement of the first half (i.e. the two halves add to $999...9$), so once you reach the $983$ you can just recite the complement digits.





          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Answer should include the digital code and the method you employed to generate the whole sequence..that is the key part. I can recall all the digits anywhere even without a calculator.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 8 at 14:01










          • $begingroup$
            I just edited my answer with another method which does use the special cyclic property, but it seems computationally harder than the direct reciprocal method ... not sure exactly what @Uvc is looking for.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:40










          • $begingroup$
            Sorry for my late comment..just came from a long 6 mile walk...as mathematicians i knew most of you will get this far..I will edit my question by adding. “Very simple”..I have already given the first clue today..till the puzzle is solved I will edit to add more clues 1 per day
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 10 at 15:05


















          5





          +25







          $begingroup$

          Edit:




          Quick explanation, mostly covered by Jaap Scherphuis' answer already:


          The family of 9 are referring to the full reptend primes under 100, namely $7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97$, of which the "brothers" are $59$ and $61$, and the "father" is $97$.


          The sequence 16xxxx61 is tied to the reciprocal of $1/59$, which has a 58 digit repeating decimal sequence:

          $0169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661$


          My construction method:


          I found a construction method that doesn't require starting with any particular (long) number. It uses a division trick called Leapfrog division to compute the value of $1/59$:


          Start with $1$ ("the digital code"). At each step we will divide the current number by $6$ to get a quotient and a remainder. In step one we have:

          $1 / 6$ = $0,1$ (where the 1st value is the quotient, and the 2nd value is the remainder)


          Now take the remainder, $1$ and append the quotient $0$ to get the next number to divide: $10$:

          $10 / 6$ = $1,4$
          $41 / 6$ = $6,5$
          $56 / 6$ = $9,2$
          $29 / 6$ = $4,5$
          $54 / 6$ = $9,0$
          $09 / 6$ = $1,3$
          $31 / 6$ = $5,1$
          $15 / 6$ = $2,3$
          $32 / 6$ = $5,2$
          $25 / 6$ = $4,1$

          etc.


          The quotient values form the decimal expansion of $1/59$:
          $0.01694915254...$ which is the sequence we are looking for minus the leading zero.


          The reason this works is because we are trying to compute $1/59$, and since $59$ ends in a $9$, we can use leapfrog division using $6$ as the divisor instead of $59$.




          (Old answer removed, apparently it was confusing the issue)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            @jsi. Although this is nice simplification of Japp’s original suggestion, what I am looking for is the numerical code which used repeatedly to generate the rest of the sequence. Current solution involves generating the first five digits presumably by straightforward division and then applying the algorithm.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 11 at 10:49










          • $begingroup$
            @Uvc Still not sure what you want, but I came up with a construction method where the starting numeric code is "1".
            $endgroup$
            – JS1
            May 12 at 11:02










          • $begingroup$
            @jsi As I stated, you have to find the code number which used repeatedly generates the next number in the sequence in a very simple way. Beauty of Reptand primes is for some of them , sequence can be written immediately without ever seeing the sequence before..follow me for further clues.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 12 at 11:08










          • $begingroup$
            @Uvc You must be looking for some specific method. The leapfrog division method in my latest edit is so simple I can do it in my head, but I take it that the one you have in mind is just as simple or even more so.
            $endgroup$
            – JS1
            May 12 at 16:35










          • $begingroup$
            @jsl yes..also your method needs the first 5 digits be computed first and apply leapfrog technique..mine involves only knowing the reptand number, initial digit is given by the rule for all reptand s..then simple operation to be performed for determining digits using the simple numeric code...all the 29 digits can be derived...in conjunction with 9 compliment rule..rest of the digits can be written right. Away..my method involves no initial computation of the seed number and much faster.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 12 at 19:44


















          4












          $begingroup$

          Jaap Scherpuis found the answer, but the OP wants more explanation and a simple construction...



          I am middle aged bike rider still in prime shape.




          We're looking for a prime number $p$, somewhere around the 40s or 50s maybe.




          I have twin like older brother who is couple of years older than me.




          It's the lower of a pair of twin primes $p,p+2$.




          We both are cryptographers who love to play with fractions and our digital signatures consisting of long sequences that are closely tied to our age and a tad shorter than our ages.




          Something about fractions gives a long sequence of digits related to $p$, a sequence which is just a little shorter than length $p$. That suggests we're looking for a full reptend prime, whose reciprocal $1/p$ has a cyclic decimal expansion consisting of a cyclic number repeated.




          Since my signature is closely tied to the reciprocal of my age, I can recall the entire sequence mentally using the key and simple method.




          This is the key part (pun intended). Since the signature (cyclic number) times $p$ equals $99999...999$, we can construct each digit of the signature in turn.




          Starting from the front of the number ($16...$), we would proceed as follows:




          Divide successive powers of $10$ by $p$:

          $10^2div59=1.(dots)$,
          $10^3div59=16.(dots)$,
          $10^4div59=169.(dots)$,
          $10^5div59=1,694.(dots)$,
          $10^6div59=16,949.(dots)$,
          $10^7div59=169,491.(dots)$,
          $10^8div59=1,694,915.(dots)$,
          $10^9div59=16,949,152.(dots)$,

          etc.




          Starting from the end of the number ($...61$), we would proceed as follows:




          Find the reciprocal of $59$ modulo each power of $10$ and multiply it by $99$.

          $59times61equiv99text (mod 10^2)$
          $59times661equiv999text (mod 10^3)$
          $59times9,661equiv9,999text (mod 10^4)$
          $59times79,661equiv99,999text (mod 10^5)$
          $59times779,661equiv999,999text (mod 10^6)$
          $59times6,779,661equiv9,999,999text (mod 10^7)$
          $59times06,779,661equiv99,999,999text (mod 10^8)$
          $59times406,779,661equiv999,999,999text (mod 10^9)$

          etc.




          We are special family of 9 who are in prime shape and none of us have hit the century mark yet.




          There are 9 full reptend primes under 100: namely $7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97$.







          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            As nicely explained as this is, it does seem to boil down to "find the reciprocal of p", which as you've shown is trivial and the one used to find any fraction (given a pen and paper, I'd hate to hold that in my head I admit). I felt Uvc's comment below to state the "method employed" implied some mnemonic to remember the digits.
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:22










          • $begingroup$
            @Fifth_H0r5eman I racked my brains for a neater method ... FWIW, when I found the Wikipedia page for cyclic numbers it described the same construction. Maybe, maybe, we can somehow use modular arithmetic, but I'm not seeing it.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:25










          • $begingroup$
            Oh I'm not criticising the method, just that I felt it was the standard way to calculate any of this form so was almost redundant. Finding the actual number wasn't such a problem, finding a way to memorise it without tedious calculation however seems the greater feat. There's a fairly high proportion of double digits, but even then given the length of the number, short of splitting it into segments and base changes, I can't see a simple way...
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:32










          • $begingroup$
            @Fifth_H0r5eman I found another method which does use the special property of $p$, but it seems computationally harder than the first method.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:39










          • $begingroup$
            Oh dear, that really is an unpleasant algorithm to look at. It's really just the inverse of the first, but due to the old left-to-right bias the multiplication instead of division doesn't manage to make it look very friendly! (Especially the 10^8).
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:45


















          3












          $begingroup$

          Surely not the intended answer



          Jaap has of course identified the intended sequence. It seems to me that all the algorithms described so far are strictly more complicated than the following, which is simply another way of formulating the division operation and seems entirely straightforward to do in one's head. However, it can't be the intended answer because supposedly the process is much simpler for this number than for its "twin"'s. (Which the process described below isn't.)




          You need to keep track of a single number between 0 and 59 inclusive, and to be able to multiply and divide small numbers. Initially, your number is 10. Now repeat the following process. 1. Multiply the number by 10. 2. Divide it by 59. 3a. Next digit is the quotient. 3b. New value of the number is the remainder. 4. Repeat these steps until the number reaches 1.




          I have trouble understanding how any other process could actually be simpler than this. (But perhaps I'll be surprised!)






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            You sure will be surprised.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 11 at 2:09










          • $begingroup$
            Or perhaps we have different ideas about what's easier than what, of course :-).
            $endgroup$
            – Gareth McCaughan
            May 11 at 2:16











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "559"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f83759%2flong-digital-sequence-16xxxxxxxxxxxxx61%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes








          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          18












          $begingroup$


          The numbers $59$ and $61$ are a pair of twin primes ("in prime shape. I have twin like older brother").
          $$frac159 = 0.0169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661016949...$$
          This reciprocal ("reciprocal of my age") has a repeating section of $58$ digits ("tad shorter than our ages"), which apart from the leading zero starts with $16$ and ends with $61$. A number $p$ whose reciprocal has a period of $p-1$ is necessarily prime, and called a full reptend prime. The repeated sequence of digits of length $p-1$ is a cyclic number ("bike rider"). There are 9 full reptend primes ("family of 9") under $100$ ("none of us have hit the century mark yet"), namely $7$, $17$, $19$, $23$, $29$, $47$, $59$, $61$, and $97$.




          So the answer is




          $169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661$




          I am not sure I have found the intended "key" and generating method, but one possible method is the following.




          Presumably it has to depend on the fact that the sequence of digits is a cyclic number. This means that if you multiply it by any number between $1$ and $p-1$ you get the same digits, except cyclically rotated. It happens that multiplying by 9 gives you the same sequence starting 5 digits further on. So what you could do is memorise a key of the first five digits, and calculate the rest. Multiplying by 9 is easily done by multiplying by 10 and subtracting once.

          The method is then as follows:

          Write the key $16949$ twice, the bottom one shifted one digit to the right.


           16949
          16949
          ------ -
          1525...



          You subtract from left to right, and then append the digits you found to continue the subtraction:
           169491525
          169491525
          ---------- -
          152542372...




          Doing the subtraction left to right is a bit unusual but not too hard, as you only need to look ahead one or two digits to check for carries. With a little practice you could write down the answer directly, just once instead of three times like I do here.

          Another useful property is that the second half of a cyclic number is the nines complement of the first half (i.e. the two halves add to $999...9$), so once you reach the $983$ you can just recite the complement digits.





          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Answer should include the digital code and the method you employed to generate the whole sequence..that is the key part. I can recall all the digits anywhere even without a calculator.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 8 at 14:01










          • $begingroup$
            I just edited my answer with another method which does use the special cyclic property, but it seems computationally harder than the direct reciprocal method ... not sure exactly what @Uvc is looking for.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:40










          • $begingroup$
            Sorry for my late comment..just came from a long 6 mile walk...as mathematicians i knew most of you will get this far..I will edit my question by adding. “Very simple”..I have already given the first clue today..till the puzzle is solved I will edit to add more clues 1 per day
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 10 at 15:05















          18












          $begingroup$


          The numbers $59$ and $61$ are a pair of twin primes ("in prime shape. I have twin like older brother").
          $$frac159 = 0.0169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661016949...$$
          This reciprocal ("reciprocal of my age") has a repeating section of $58$ digits ("tad shorter than our ages"), which apart from the leading zero starts with $16$ and ends with $61$. A number $p$ whose reciprocal has a period of $p-1$ is necessarily prime, and called a full reptend prime. The repeated sequence of digits of length $p-1$ is a cyclic number ("bike rider"). There are 9 full reptend primes ("family of 9") under $100$ ("none of us have hit the century mark yet"), namely $7$, $17$, $19$, $23$, $29$, $47$, $59$, $61$, and $97$.




          So the answer is




          $169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661$




          I am not sure I have found the intended "key" and generating method, but one possible method is the following.




          Presumably it has to depend on the fact that the sequence of digits is a cyclic number. This means that if you multiply it by any number between $1$ and $p-1$ you get the same digits, except cyclically rotated. It happens that multiplying by 9 gives you the same sequence starting 5 digits further on. So what you could do is memorise a key of the first five digits, and calculate the rest. Multiplying by 9 is easily done by multiplying by 10 and subtracting once.

          The method is then as follows:

          Write the key $16949$ twice, the bottom one shifted one digit to the right.


           16949
          16949
          ------ -
          1525...



          You subtract from left to right, and then append the digits you found to continue the subtraction:
           169491525
          169491525
          ---------- -
          152542372...




          Doing the subtraction left to right is a bit unusual but not too hard, as you only need to look ahead one or two digits to check for carries. With a little practice you could write down the answer directly, just once instead of three times like I do here.

          Another useful property is that the second half of a cyclic number is the nines complement of the first half (i.e. the two halves add to $999...9$), so once you reach the $983$ you can just recite the complement digits.





          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Answer should include the digital code and the method you employed to generate the whole sequence..that is the key part. I can recall all the digits anywhere even without a calculator.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 8 at 14:01










          • $begingroup$
            I just edited my answer with another method which does use the special cyclic property, but it seems computationally harder than the direct reciprocal method ... not sure exactly what @Uvc is looking for.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:40










          • $begingroup$
            Sorry for my late comment..just came from a long 6 mile walk...as mathematicians i knew most of you will get this far..I will edit my question by adding. “Very simple”..I have already given the first clue today..till the puzzle is solved I will edit to add more clues 1 per day
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 10 at 15:05













          18












          18








          18





          $begingroup$


          The numbers $59$ and $61$ are a pair of twin primes ("in prime shape. I have twin like older brother").
          $$frac159 = 0.0169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661016949...$$
          This reciprocal ("reciprocal of my age") has a repeating section of $58$ digits ("tad shorter than our ages"), which apart from the leading zero starts with $16$ and ends with $61$. A number $p$ whose reciprocal has a period of $p-1$ is necessarily prime, and called a full reptend prime. The repeated sequence of digits of length $p-1$ is a cyclic number ("bike rider"). There are 9 full reptend primes ("family of 9") under $100$ ("none of us have hit the century mark yet"), namely $7$, $17$, $19$, $23$, $29$, $47$, $59$, $61$, and $97$.




          So the answer is




          $169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661$




          I am not sure I have found the intended "key" and generating method, but one possible method is the following.




          Presumably it has to depend on the fact that the sequence of digits is a cyclic number. This means that if you multiply it by any number between $1$ and $p-1$ you get the same digits, except cyclically rotated. It happens that multiplying by 9 gives you the same sequence starting 5 digits further on. So what you could do is memorise a key of the first five digits, and calculate the rest. Multiplying by 9 is easily done by multiplying by 10 and subtracting once.

          The method is then as follows:

          Write the key $16949$ twice, the bottom one shifted one digit to the right.


           16949
          16949
          ------ -
          1525...



          You subtract from left to right, and then append the digits you found to continue the subtraction:
           169491525
          169491525
          ---------- -
          152542372...




          Doing the subtraction left to right is a bit unusual but not too hard, as you only need to look ahead one or two digits to check for carries. With a little practice you could write down the answer directly, just once instead of three times like I do here.

          Another useful property is that the second half of a cyclic number is the nines complement of the first half (i.e. the two halves add to $999...9$), so once you reach the $983$ you can just recite the complement digits.





          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$




          The numbers $59$ and $61$ are a pair of twin primes ("in prime shape. I have twin like older brother").
          $$frac159 = 0.0169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661016949...$$
          This reciprocal ("reciprocal of my age") has a repeating section of $58$ digits ("tad shorter than our ages"), which apart from the leading zero starts with $16$ and ends with $61$. A number $p$ whose reciprocal has a period of $p-1$ is necessarily prime, and called a full reptend prime. The repeated sequence of digits of length $p-1$ is a cyclic number ("bike rider"). There are 9 full reptend primes ("family of 9") under $100$ ("none of us have hit the century mark yet"), namely $7$, $17$, $19$, $23$, $29$, $47$, $59$, $61$, and $97$.




          So the answer is




          $169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661$




          I am not sure I have found the intended "key" and generating method, but one possible method is the following.




          Presumably it has to depend on the fact that the sequence of digits is a cyclic number. This means that if you multiply it by any number between $1$ and $p-1$ you get the same digits, except cyclically rotated. It happens that multiplying by 9 gives you the same sequence starting 5 digits further on. So what you could do is memorise a key of the first five digits, and calculate the rest. Multiplying by 9 is easily done by multiplying by 10 and subtracting once.

          The method is then as follows:

          Write the key $16949$ twice, the bottom one shifted one digit to the right.


           16949
          16949
          ------ -
          1525...



          You subtract from left to right, and then append the digits you found to continue the subtraction:
           169491525
          169491525
          ---------- -
          152542372...




          Doing the subtraction left to right is a bit unusual but not too hard, as you only need to look ahead one or two digits to check for carries. With a little practice you could write down the answer directly, just once instead of three times like I do here.

          Another useful property is that the second half of a cyclic number is the nines complement of the first half (i.e. the two halves add to $999...9$), so once you reach the $983$ you can just recite the complement digits.






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 10 at 16:26

























          answered May 8 at 13:40









          Jaap ScherphuisJaap Scherphuis

          17.1k12974




          17.1k12974











          • $begingroup$
            Answer should include the digital code and the method you employed to generate the whole sequence..that is the key part. I can recall all the digits anywhere even without a calculator.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 8 at 14:01










          • $begingroup$
            I just edited my answer with another method which does use the special cyclic property, but it seems computationally harder than the direct reciprocal method ... not sure exactly what @Uvc is looking for.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:40










          • $begingroup$
            Sorry for my late comment..just came from a long 6 mile walk...as mathematicians i knew most of you will get this far..I will edit my question by adding. “Very simple”..I have already given the first clue today..till the puzzle is solved I will edit to add more clues 1 per day
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 10 at 15:05
















          • $begingroup$
            Answer should include the digital code and the method you employed to generate the whole sequence..that is the key part. I can recall all the digits anywhere even without a calculator.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 8 at 14:01










          • $begingroup$
            I just edited my answer with another method which does use the special cyclic property, but it seems computationally harder than the direct reciprocal method ... not sure exactly what @Uvc is looking for.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:40










          • $begingroup$
            Sorry for my late comment..just came from a long 6 mile walk...as mathematicians i knew most of you will get this far..I will edit my question by adding. “Very simple”..I have already given the first clue today..till the puzzle is solved I will edit to add more clues 1 per day
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 10 at 15:05















          $begingroup$
          Answer should include the digital code and the method you employed to generate the whole sequence..that is the key part. I can recall all the digits anywhere even without a calculator.
          $endgroup$
          – Uvc
          May 8 at 14:01




          $begingroup$
          Answer should include the digital code and the method you employed to generate the whole sequence..that is the key part. I can recall all the digits anywhere even without a calculator.
          $endgroup$
          – Uvc
          May 8 at 14:01












          $begingroup$
          I just edited my answer with another method which does use the special cyclic property, but it seems computationally harder than the direct reciprocal method ... not sure exactly what @Uvc is looking for.
          $endgroup$
          – Rand al'Thor
          May 10 at 13:40




          $begingroup$
          I just edited my answer with another method which does use the special cyclic property, but it seems computationally harder than the direct reciprocal method ... not sure exactly what @Uvc is looking for.
          $endgroup$
          – Rand al'Thor
          May 10 at 13:40












          $begingroup$
          Sorry for my late comment..just came from a long 6 mile walk...as mathematicians i knew most of you will get this far..I will edit my question by adding. “Very simple”..I have already given the first clue today..till the puzzle is solved I will edit to add more clues 1 per day
          $endgroup$
          – Uvc
          May 10 at 15:05




          $begingroup$
          Sorry for my late comment..just came from a long 6 mile walk...as mathematicians i knew most of you will get this far..I will edit my question by adding. “Very simple”..I have already given the first clue today..till the puzzle is solved I will edit to add more clues 1 per day
          $endgroup$
          – Uvc
          May 10 at 15:05











          5





          +25







          $begingroup$

          Edit:




          Quick explanation, mostly covered by Jaap Scherphuis' answer already:


          The family of 9 are referring to the full reptend primes under 100, namely $7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97$, of which the "brothers" are $59$ and $61$, and the "father" is $97$.


          The sequence 16xxxx61 is tied to the reciprocal of $1/59$, which has a 58 digit repeating decimal sequence:

          $0169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661$


          My construction method:


          I found a construction method that doesn't require starting with any particular (long) number. It uses a division trick called Leapfrog division to compute the value of $1/59$:


          Start with $1$ ("the digital code"). At each step we will divide the current number by $6$ to get a quotient and a remainder. In step one we have:

          $1 / 6$ = $0,1$ (where the 1st value is the quotient, and the 2nd value is the remainder)


          Now take the remainder, $1$ and append the quotient $0$ to get the next number to divide: $10$:

          $10 / 6$ = $1,4$
          $41 / 6$ = $6,5$
          $56 / 6$ = $9,2$
          $29 / 6$ = $4,5$
          $54 / 6$ = $9,0$
          $09 / 6$ = $1,3$
          $31 / 6$ = $5,1$
          $15 / 6$ = $2,3$
          $32 / 6$ = $5,2$
          $25 / 6$ = $4,1$

          etc.


          The quotient values form the decimal expansion of $1/59$:
          $0.01694915254...$ which is the sequence we are looking for minus the leading zero.


          The reason this works is because we are trying to compute $1/59$, and since $59$ ends in a $9$, we can use leapfrog division using $6$ as the divisor instead of $59$.




          (Old answer removed, apparently it was confusing the issue)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            @jsi. Although this is nice simplification of Japp’s original suggestion, what I am looking for is the numerical code which used repeatedly to generate the rest of the sequence. Current solution involves generating the first five digits presumably by straightforward division and then applying the algorithm.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 11 at 10:49










          • $begingroup$
            @Uvc Still not sure what you want, but I came up with a construction method where the starting numeric code is "1".
            $endgroup$
            – JS1
            May 12 at 11:02










          • $begingroup$
            @jsi As I stated, you have to find the code number which used repeatedly generates the next number in the sequence in a very simple way. Beauty of Reptand primes is for some of them , sequence can be written immediately without ever seeing the sequence before..follow me for further clues.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 12 at 11:08










          • $begingroup$
            @Uvc You must be looking for some specific method. The leapfrog division method in my latest edit is so simple I can do it in my head, but I take it that the one you have in mind is just as simple or even more so.
            $endgroup$
            – JS1
            May 12 at 16:35










          • $begingroup$
            @jsl yes..also your method needs the first 5 digits be computed first and apply leapfrog technique..mine involves only knowing the reptand number, initial digit is given by the rule for all reptand s..then simple operation to be performed for determining digits using the simple numeric code...all the 29 digits can be derived...in conjunction with 9 compliment rule..rest of the digits can be written right. Away..my method involves no initial computation of the seed number and much faster.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 12 at 19:44















          5





          +25







          $begingroup$

          Edit:




          Quick explanation, mostly covered by Jaap Scherphuis' answer already:


          The family of 9 are referring to the full reptend primes under 100, namely $7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97$, of which the "brothers" are $59$ and $61$, and the "father" is $97$.


          The sequence 16xxxx61 is tied to the reciprocal of $1/59$, which has a 58 digit repeating decimal sequence:

          $0169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661$


          My construction method:


          I found a construction method that doesn't require starting with any particular (long) number. It uses a division trick called Leapfrog division to compute the value of $1/59$:


          Start with $1$ ("the digital code"). At each step we will divide the current number by $6$ to get a quotient and a remainder. In step one we have:

          $1 / 6$ = $0,1$ (where the 1st value is the quotient, and the 2nd value is the remainder)


          Now take the remainder, $1$ and append the quotient $0$ to get the next number to divide: $10$:

          $10 / 6$ = $1,4$
          $41 / 6$ = $6,5$
          $56 / 6$ = $9,2$
          $29 / 6$ = $4,5$
          $54 / 6$ = $9,0$
          $09 / 6$ = $1,3$
          $31 / 6$ = $5,1$
          $15 / 6$ = $2,3$
          $32 / 6$ = $5,2$
          $25 / 6$ = $4,1$

          etc.


          The quotient values form the decimal expansion of $1/59$:
          $0.01694915254...$ which is the sequence we are looking for minus the leading zero.


          The reason this works is because we are trying to compute $1/59$, and since $59$ ends in a $9$, we can use leapfrog division using $6$ as the divisor instead of $59$.




          (Old answer removed, apparently it was confusing the issue)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            @jsi. Although this is nice simplification of Japp’s original suggestion, what I am looking for is the numerical code which used repeatedly to generate the rest of the sequence. Current solution involves generating the first five digits presumably by straightforward division and then applying the algorithm.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 11 at 10:49










          • $begingroup$
            @Uvc Still not sure what you want, but I came up with a construction method where the starting numeric code is "1".
            $endgroup$
            – JS1
            May 12 at 11:02










          • $begingroup$
            @jsi As I stated, you have to find the code number which used repeatedly generates the next number in the sequence in a very simple way. Beauty of Reptand primes is for some of them , sequence can be written immediately without ever seeing the sequence before..follow me for further clues.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 12 at 11:08










          • $begingroup$
            @Uvc You must be looking for some specific method. The leapfrog division method in my latest edit is so simple I can do it in my head, but I take it that the one you have in mind is just as simple or even more so.
            $endgroup$
            – JS1
            May 12 at 16:35










          • $begingroup$
            @jsl yes..also your method needs the first 5 digits be computed first and apply leapfrog technique..mine involves only knowing the reptand number, initial digit is given by the rule for all reptand s..then simple operation to be performed for determining digits using the simple numeric code...all the 29 digits can be derived...in conjunction with 9 compliment rule..rest of the digits can be written right. Away..my method involves no initial computation of the seed number and much faster.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 12 at 19:44













          5





          +25







          5





          +25



          5




          +25



          $begingroup$

          Edit:




          Quick explanation, mostly covered by Jaap Scherphuis' answer already:


          The family of 9 are referring to the full reptend primes under 100, namely $7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97$, of which the "brothers" are $59$ and $61$, and the "father" is $97$.


          The sequence 16xxxx61 is tied to the reciprocal of $1/59$, which has a 58 digit repeating decimal sequence:

          $0169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661$


          My construction method:


          I found a construction method that doesn't require starting with any particular (long) number. It uses a division trick called Leapfrog division to compute the value of $1/59$:


          Start with $1$ ("the digital code"). At each step we will divide the current number by $6$ to get a quotient and a remainder. In step one we have:

          $1 / 6$ = $0,1$ (where the 1st value is the quotient, and the 2nd value is the remainder)


          Now take the remainder, $1$ and append the quotient $0$ to get the next number to divide: $10$:

          $10 / 6$ = $1,4$
          $41 / 6$ = $6,5$
          $56 / 6$ = $9,2$
          $29 / 6$ = $4,5$
          $54 / 6$ = $9,0$
          $09 / 6$ = $1,3$
          $31 / 6$ = $5,1$
          $15 / 6$ = $2,3$
          $32 / 6$ = $5,2$
          $25 / 6$ = $4,1$

          etc.


          The quotient values form the decimal expansion of $1/59$:
          $0.01694915254...$ which is the sequence we are looking for minus the leading zero.


          The reason this works is because we are trying to compute $1/59$, and since $59$ ends in a $9$, we can use leapfrog division using $6$ as the divisor instead of $59$.




          (Old answer removed, apparently it was confusing the issue)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Edit:




          Quick explanation, mostly covered by Jaap Scherphuis' answer already:


          The family of 9 are referring to the full reptend primes under 100, namely $7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97$, of which the "brothers" are $59$ and $61$, and the "father" is $97$.


          The sequence 16xxxx61 is tied to the reciprocal of $1/59$, which has a 58 digit repeating decimal sequence:

          $0169491525423728813559322033898305084745762711864406779661$


          My construction method:


          I found a construction method that doesn't require starting with any particular (long) number. It uses a division trick called Leapfrog division to compute the value of $1/59$:


          Start with $1$ ("the digital code"). At each step we will divide the current number by $6$ to get a quotient and a remainder. In step one we have:

          $1 / 6$ = $0,1$ (where the 1st value is the quotient, and the 2nd value is the remainder)


          Now take the remainder, $1$ and append the quotient $0$ to get the next number to divide: $10$:

          $10 / 6$ = $1,4$
          $41 / 6$ = $6,5$
          $56 / 6$ = $9,2$
          $29 / 6$ = $4,5$
          $54 / 6$ = $9,0$
          $09 / 6$ = $1,3$
          $31 / 6$ = $5,1$
          $15 / 6$ = $2,3$
          $32 / 6$ = $5,2$
          $25 / 6$ = $4,1$

          etc.


          The quotient values form the decimal expansion of $1/59$:
          $0.01694915254...$ which is the sequence we are looking for minus the leading zero.


          The reason this works is because we are trying to compute $1/59$, and since $59$ ends in a $9$, we can use leapfrog division using $6$ as the divisor instead of $59$.




          (Old answer removed, apparently it was confusing the issue)







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 15 at 19:58

























          answered May 11 at 10:04









          JS1JS1

          4,0081620




          4,0081620











          • $begingroup$
            @jsi. Although this is nice simplification of Japp’s original suggestion, what I am looking for is the numerical code which used repeatedly to generate the rest of the sequence. Current solution involves generating the first five digits presumably by straightforward division and then applying the algorithm.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 11 at 10:49










          • $begingroup$
            @Uvc Still not sure what you want, but I came up with a construction method where the starting numeric code is "1".
            $endgroup$
            – JS1
            May 12 at 11:02










          • $begingroup$
            @jsi As I stated, you have to find the code number which used repeatedly generates the next number in the sequence in a very simple way. Beauty of Reptand primes is for some of them , sequence can be written immediately without ever seeing the sequence before..follow me for further clues.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 12 at 11:08










          • $begingroup$
            @Uvc You must be looking for some specific method. The leapfrog division method in my latest edit is so simple I can do it in my head, but I take it that the one you have in mind is just as simple or even more so.
            $endgroup$
            – JS1
            May 12 at 16:35










          • $begingroup$
            @jsl yes..also your method needs the first 5 digits be computed first and apply leapfrog technique..mine involves only knowing the reptand number, initial digit is given by the rule for all reptand s..then simple operation to be performed for determining digits using the simple numeric code...all the 29 digits can be derived...in conjunction with 9 compliment rule..rest of the digits can be written right. Away..my method involves no initial computation of the seed number and much faster.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 12 at 19:44
















          • $begingroup$
            @jsi. Although this is nice simplification of Japp’s original suggestion, what I am looking for is the numerical code which used repeatedly to generate the rest of the sequence. Current solution involves generating the first five digits presumably by straightforward division and then applying the algorithm.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 11 at 10:49










          • $begingroup$
            @Uvc Still not sure what you want, but I came up with a construction method where the starting numeric code is "1".
            $endgroup$
            – JS1
            May 12 at 11:02










          • $begingroup$
            @jsi As I stated, you have to find the code number which used repeatedly generates the next number in the sequence in a very simple way. Beauty of Reptand primes is for some of them , sequence can be written immediately without ever seeing the sequence before..follow me for further clues.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 12 at 11:08










          • $begingroup$
            @Uvc You must be looking for some specific method. The leapfrog division method in my latest edit is so simple I can do it in my head, but I take it that the one you have in mind is just as simple or even more so.
            $endgroup$
            – JS1
            May 12 at 16:35










          • $begingroup$
            @jsl yes..also your method needs the first 5 digits be computed first and apply leapfrog technique..mine involves only knowing the reptand number, initial digit is given by the rule for all reptand s..then simple operation to be performed for determining digits using the simple numeric code...all the 29 digits can be derived...in conjunction with 9 compliment rule..rest of the digits can be written right. Away..my method involves no initial computation of the seed number and much faster.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 12 at 19:44















          $begingroup$
          @jsi. Although this is nice simplification of Japp’s original suggestion, what I am looking for is the numerical code which used repeatedly to generate the rest of the sequence. Current solution involves generating the first five digits presumably by straightforward division and then applying the algorithm.
          $endgroup$
          – Uvc
          May 11 at 10:49




          $begingroup$
          @jsi. Although this is nice simplification of Japp’s original suggestion, what I am looking for is the numerical code which used repeatedly to generate the rest of the sequence. Current solution involves generating the first five digits presumably by straightforward division and then applying the algorithm.
          $endgroup$
          – Uvc
          May 11 at 10:49












          $begingroup$
          @Uvc Still not sure what you want, but I came up with a construction method where the starting numeric code is "1".
          $endgroup$
          – JS1
          May 12 at 11:02




          $begingroup$
          @Uvc Still not sure what you want, but I came up with a construction method where the starting numeric code is "1".
          $endgroup$
          – JS1
          May 12 at 11:02












          $begingroup$
          @jsi As I stated, you have to find the code number which used repeatedly generates the next number in the sequence in a very simple way. Beauty of Reptand primes is for some of them , sequence can be written immediately without ever seeing the sequence before..follow me for further clues.
          $endgroup$
          – Uvc
          May 12 at 11:08




          $begingroup$
          @jsi As I stated, you have to find the code number which used repeatedly generates the next number in the sequence in a very simple way. Beauty of Reptand primes is for some of them , sequence can be written immediately without ever seeing the sequence before..follow me for further clues.
          $endgroup$
          – Uvc
          May 12 at 11:08












          $begingroup$
          @Uvc You must be looking for some specific method. The leapfrog division method in my latest edit is so simple I can do it in my head, but I take it that the one you have in mind is just as simple or even more so.
          $endgroup$
          – JS1
          May 12 at 16:35




          $begingroup$
          @Uvc You must be looking for some specific method. The leapfrog division method in my latest edit is so simple I can do it in my head, but I take it that the one you have in mind is just as simple or even more so.
          $endgroup$
          – JS1
          May 12 at 16:35












          $begingroup$
          @jsl yes..also your method needs the first 5 digits be computed first and apply leapfrog technique..mine involves only knowing the reptand number, initial digit is given by the rule for all reptand s..then simple operation to be performed for determining digits using the simple numeric code...all the 29 digits can be derived...in conjunction with 9 compliment rule..rest of the digits can be written right. Away..my method involves no initial computation of the seed number and much faster.
          $endgroup$
          – Uvc
          May 12 at 19:44




          $begingroup$
          @jsl yes..also your method needs the first 5 digits be computed first and apply leapfrog technique..mine involves only knowing the reptand number, initial digit is given by the rule for all reptand s..then simple operation to be performed for determining digits using the simple numeric code...all the 29 digits can be derived...in conjunction with 9 compliment rule..rest of the digits can be written right. Away..my method involves no initial computation of the seed number and much faster.
          $endgroup$
          – Uvc
          May 12 at 19:44











          4












          $begingroup$

          Jaap Scherpuis found the answer, but the OP wants more explanation and a simple construction...



          I am middle aged bike rider still in prime shape.




          We're looking for a prime number $p$, somewhere around the 40s or 50s maybe.




          I have twin like older brother who is couple of years older than me.




          It's the lower of a pair of twin primes $p,p+2$.




          We both are cryptographers who love to play with fractions and our digital signatures consisting of long sequences that are closely tied to our age and a tad shorter than our ages.




          Something about fractions gives a long sequence of digits related to $p$, a sequence which is just a little shorter than length $p$. That suggests we're looking for a full reptend prime, whose reciprocal $1/p$ has a cyclic decimal expansion consisting of a cyclic number repeated.




          Since my signature is closely tied to the reciprocal of my age, I can recall the entire sequence mentally using the key and simple method.




          This is the key part (pun intended). Since the signature (cyclic number) times $p$ equals $99999...999$, we can construct each digit of the signature in turn.




          Starting from the front of the number ($16...$), we would proceed as follows:




          Divide successive powers of $10$ by $p$:

          $10^2div59=1.(dots)$,
          $10^3div59=16.(dots)$,
          $10^4div59=169.(dots)$,
          $10^5div59=1,694.(dots)$,
          $10^6div59=16,949.(dots)$,
          $10^7div59=169,491.(dots)$,
          $10^8div59=1,694,915.(dots)$,
          $10^9div59=16,949,152.(dots)$,

          etc.




          Starting from the end of the number ($...61$), we would proceed as follows:




          Find the reciprocal of $59$ modulo each power of $10$ and multiply it by $99$.

          $59times61equiv99text (mod 10^2)$
          $59times661equiv999text (mod 10^3)$
          $59times9,661equiv9,999text (mod 10^4)$
          $59times79,661equiv99,999text (mod 10^5)$
          $59times779,661equiv999,999text (mod 10^6)$
          $59times6,779,661equiv9,999,999text (mod 10^7)$
          $59times06,779,661equiv99,999,999text (mod 10^8)$
          $59times406,779,661equiv999,999,999text (mod 10^9)$

          etc.




          We are special family of 9 who are in prime shape and none of us have hit the century mark yet.




          There are 9 full reptend primes under 100: namely $7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97$.







          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            As nicely explained as this is, it does seem to boil down to "find the reciprocal of p", which as you've shown is trivial and the one used to find any fraction (given a pen and paper, I'd hate to hold that in my head I admit). I felt Uvc's comment below to state the "method employed" implied some mnemonic to remember the digits.
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:22










          • $begingroup$
            @Fifth_H0r5eman I racked my brains for a neater method ... FWIW, when I found the Wikipedia page for cyclic numbers it described the same construction. Maybe, maybe, we can somehow use modular arithmetic, but I'm not seeing it.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:25










          • $begingroup$
            Oh I'm not criticising the method, just that I felt it was the standard way to calculate any of this form so was almost redundant. Finding the actual number wasn't such a problem, finding a way to memorise it without tedious calculation however seems the greater feat. There's a fairly high proportion of double digits, but even then given the length of the number, short of splitting it into segments and base changes, I can't see a simple way...
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:32










          • $begingroup$
            @Fifth_H0r5eman I found another method which does use the special property of $p$, but it seems computationally harder than the first method.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:39










          • $begingroup$
            Oh dear, that really is an unpleasant algorithm to look at. It's really just the inverse of the first, but due to the old left-to-right bias the multiplication instead of division doesn't manage to make it look very friendly! (Especially the 10^8).
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:45















          4












          $begingroup$

          Jaap Scherpuis found the answer, but the OP wants more explanation and a simple construction...



          I am middle aged bike rider still in prime shape.




          We're looking for a prime number $p$, somewhere around the 40s or 50s maybe.




          I have twin like older brother who is couple of years older than me.




          It's the lower of a pair of twin primes $p,p+2$.




          We both are cryptographers who love to play with fractions and our digital signatures consisting of long sequences that are closely tied to our age and a tad shorter than our ages.




          Something about fractions gives a long sequence of digits related to $p$, a sequence which is just a little shorter than length $p$. That suggests we're looking for a full reptend prime, whose reciprocal $1/p$ has a cyclic decimal expansion consisting of a cyclic number repeated.




          Since my signature is closely tied to the reciprocal of my age, I can recall the entire sequence mentally using the key and simple method.




          This is the key part (pun intended). Since the signature (cyclic number) times $p$ equals $99999...999$, we can construct each digit of the signature in turn.




          Starting from the front of the number ($16...$), we would proceed as follows:




          Divide successive powers of $10$ by $p$:

          $10^2div59=1.(dots)$,
          $10^3div59=16.(dots)$,
          $10^4div59=169.(dots)$,
          $10^5div59=1,694.(dots)$,
          $10^6div59=16,949.(dots)$,
          $10^7div59=169,491.(dots)$,
          $10^8div59=1,694,915.(dots)$,
          $10^9div59=16,949,152.(dots)$,

          etc.




          Starting from the end of the number ($...61$), we would proceed as follows:




          Find the reciprocal of $59$ modulo each power of $10$ and multiply it by $99$.

          $59times61equiv99text (mod 10^2)$
          $59times661equiv999text (mod 10^3)$
          $59times9,661equiv9,999text (mod 10^4)$
          $59times79,661equiv99,999text (mod 10^5)$
          $59times779,661equiv999,999text (mod 10^6)$
          $59times6,779,661equiv9,999,999text (mod 10^7)$
          $59times06,779,661equiv99,999,999text (mod 10^8)$
          $59times406,779,661equiv999,999,999text (mod 10^9)$

          etc.




          We are special family of 9 who are in prime shape and none of us have hit the century mark yet.




          There are 9 full reptend primes under 100: namely $7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97$.







          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            As nicely explained as this is, it does seem to boil down to "find the reciprocal of p", which as you've shown is trivial and the one used to find any fraction (given a pen and paper, I'd hate to hold that in my head I admit). I felt Uvc's comment below to state the "method employed" implied some mnemonic to remember the digits.
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:22










          • $begingroup$
            @Fifth_H0r5eman I racked my brains for a neater method ... FWIW, when I found the Wikipedia page for cyclic numbers it described the same construction. Maybe, maybe, we can somehow use modular arithmetic, but I'm not seeing it.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:25










          • $begingroup$
            Oh I'm not criticising the method, just that I felt it was the standard way to calculate any of this form so was almost redundant. Finding the actual number wasn't such a problem, finding a way to memorise it without tedious calculation however seems the greater feat. There's a fairly high proportion of double digits, but even then given the length of the number, short of splitting it into segments and base changes, I can't see a simple way...
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:32










          • $begingroup$
            @Fifth_H0r5eman I found another method which does use the special property of $p$, but it seems computationally harder than the first method.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:39










          • $begingroup$
            Oh dear, that really is an unpleasant algorithm to look at. It's really just the inverse of the first, but due to the old left-to-right bias the multiplication instead of division doesn't manage to make it look very friendly! (Especially the 10^8).
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:45













          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          Jaap Scherpuis found the answer, but the OP wants more explanation and a simple construction...



          I am middle aged bike rider still in prime shape.




          We're looking for a prime number $p$, somewhere around the 40s or 50s maybe.




          I have twin like older brother who is couple of years older than me.




          It's the lower of a pair of twin primes $p,p+2$.




          We both are cryptographers who love to play with fractions and our digital signatures consisting of long sequences that are closely tied to our age and a tad shorter than our ages.




          Something about fractions gives a long sequence of digits related to $p$, a sequence which is just a little shorter than length $p$. That suggests we're looking for a full reptend prime, whose reciprocal $1/p$ has a cyclic decimal expansion consisting of a cyclic number repeated.




          Since my signature is closely tied to the reciprocal of my age, I can recall the entire sequence mentally using the key and simple method.




          This is the key part (pun intended). Since the signature (cyclic number) times $p$ equals $99999...999$, we can construct each digit of the signature in turn.




          Starting from the front of the number ($16...$), we would proceed as follows:




          Divide successive powers of $10$ by $p$:

          $10^2div59=1.(dots)$,
          $10^3div59=16.(dots)$,
          $10^4div59=169.(dots)$,
          $10^5div59=1,694.(dots)$,
          $10^6div59=16,949.(dots)$,
          $10^7div59=169,491.(dots)$,
          $10^8div59=1,694,915.(dots)$,
          $10^9div59=16,949,152.(dots)$,

          etc.




          Starting from the end of the number ($...61$), we would proceed as follows:




          Find the reciprocal of $59$ modulo each power of $10$ and multiply it by $99$.

          $59times61equiv99text (mod 10^2)$
          $59times661equiv999text (mod 10^3)$
          $59times9,661equiv9,999text (mod 10^4)$
          $59times79,661equiv99,999text (mod 10^5)$
          $59times779,661equiv999,999text (mod 10^6)$
          $59times6,779,661equiv9,999,999text (mod 10^7)$
          $59times06,779,661equiv99,999,999text (mod 10^8)$
          $59times406,779,661equiv999,999,999text (mod 10^9)$

          etc.




          We are special family of 9 who are in prime shape and none of us have hit the century mark yet.




          There are 9 full reptend primes under 100: namely $7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97$.







          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Jaap Scherpuis found the answer, but the OP wants more explanation and a simple construction...



          I am middle aged bike rider still in prime shape.




          We're looking for a prime number $p$, somewhere around the 40s or 50s maybe.




          I have twin like older brother who is couple of years older than me.




          It's the lower of a pair of twin primes $p,p+2$.




          We both are cryptographers who love to play with fractions and our digital signatures consisting of long sequences that are closely tied to our age and a tad shorter than our ages.




          Something about fractions gives a long sequence of digits related to $p$, a sequence which is just a little shorter than length $p$. That suggests we're looking for a full reptend prime, whose reciprocal $1/p$ has a cyclic decimal expansion consisting of a cyclic number repeated.




          Since my signature is closely tied to the reciprocal of my age, I can recall the entire sequence mentally using the key and simple method.




          This is the key part (pun intended). Since the signature (cyclic number) times $p$ equals $99999...999$, we can construct each digit of the signature in turn.




          Starting from the front of the number ($16...$), we would proceed as follows:




          Divide successive powers of $10$ by $p$:

          $10^2div59=1.(dots)$,
          $10^3div59=16.(dots)$,
          $10^4div59=169.(dots)$,
          $10^5div59=1,694.(dots)$,
          $10^6div59=16,949.(dots)$,
          $10^7div59=169,491.(dots)$,
          $10^8div59=1,694,915.(dots)$,
          $10^9div59=16,949,152.(dots)$,

          etc.




          Starting from the end of the number ($...61$), we would proceed as follows:




          Find the reciprocal of $59$ modulo each power of $10$ and multiply it by $99$.

          $59times61equiv99text (mod 10^2)$
          $59times661equiv999text (mod 10^3)$
          $59times9,661equiv9,999text (mod 10^4)$
          $59times79,661equiv99,999text (mod 10^5)$
          $59times779,661equiv999,999text (mod 10^6)$
          $59times6,779,661equiv9,999,999text (mod 10^7)$
          $59times06,779,661equiv99,999,999text (mod 10^8)$
          $59times406,779,661equiv999,999,999text (mod 10^9)$

          etc.




          We are special family of 9 who are in prime shape and none of us have hit the century mark yet.




          There are 9 full reptend primes under 100: namely $7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97$.








          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 10 at 13:48

























          answered May 10 at 13:06









          Rand al'ThorRand al'Thor

          72.1k14238479




          72.1k14238479











          • $begingroup$
            As nicely explained as this is, it does seem to boil down to "find the reciprocal of p", which as you've shown is trivial and the one used to find any fraction (given a pen and paper, I'd hate to hold that in my head I admit). I felt Uvc's comment below to state the "method employed" implied some mnemonic to remember the digits.
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:22










          • $begingroup$
            @Fifth_H0r5eman I racked my brains for a neater method ... FWIW, when I found the Wikipedia page for cyclic numbers it described the same construction. Maybe, maybe, we can somehow use modular arithmetic, but I'm not seeing it.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:25










          • $begingroup$
            Oh I'm not criticising the method, just that I felt it was the standard way to calculate any of this form so was almost redundant. Finding the actual number wasn't such a problem, finding a way to memorise it without tedious calculation however seems the greater feat. There's a fairly high proportion of double digits, but even then given the length of the number, short of splitting it into segments and base changes, I can't see a simple way...
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:32










          • $begingroup$
            @Fifth_H0r5eman I found another method which does use the special property of $p$, but it seems computationally harder than the first method.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:39










          • $begingroup$
            Oh dear, that really is an unpleasant algorithm to look at. It's really just the inverse of the first, but due to the old left-to-right bias the multiplication instead of division doesn't manage to make it look very friendly! (Especially the 10^8).
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:45
















          • $begingroup$
            As nicely explained as this is, it does seem to boil down to "find the reciprocal of p", which as you've shown is trivial and the one used to find any fraction (given a pen and paper, I'd hate to hold that in my head I admit). I felt Uvc's comment below to state the "method employed" implied some mnemonic to remember the digits.
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:22










          • $begingroup$
            @Fifth_H0r5eman I racked my brains for a neater method ... FWIW, when I found the Wikipedia page for cyclic numbers it described the same construction. Maybe, maybe, we can somehow use modular arithmetic, but I'm not seeing it.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:25










          • $begingroup$
            Oh I'm not criticising the method, just that I felt it was the standard way to calculate any of this form so was almost redundant. Finding the actual number wasn't such a problem, finding a way to memorise it without tedious calculation however seems the greater feat. There's a fairly high proportion of double digits, but even then given the length of the number, short of splitting it into segments and base changes, I can't see a simple way...
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:32










          • $begingroup$
            @Fifth_H0r5eman I found another method which does use the special property of $p$, but it seems computationally harder than the first method.
            $endgroup$
            – Rand al'Thor
            May 10 at 13:39










          • $begingroup$
            Oh dear, that really is an unpleasant algorithm to look at. It's really just the inverse of the first, but due to the old left-to-right bias the multiplication instead of division doesn't manage to make it look very friendly! (Especially the 10^8).
            $endgroup$
            – Fifth_H0r5eman
            May 10 at 13:45















          $begingroup$
          As nicely explained as this is, it does seem to boil down to "find the reciprocal of p", which as you've shown is trivial and the one used to find any fraction (given a pen and paper, I'd hate to hold that in my head I admit). I felt Uvc's comment below to state the "method employed" implied some mnemonic to remember the digits.
          $endgroup$
          – Fifth_H0r5eman
          May 10 at 13:22




          $begingroup$
          As nicely explained as this is, it does seem to boil down to "find the reciprocal of p", which as you've shown is trivial and the one used to find any fraction (given a pen and paper, I'd hate to hold that in my head I admit). I felt Uvc's comment below to state the "method employed" implied some mnemonic to remember the digits.
          $endgroup$
          – Fifth_H0r5eman
          May 10 at 13:22












          $begingroup$
          @Fifth_H0r5eman I racked my brains for a neater method ... FWIW, when I found the Wikipedia page for cyclic numbers it described the same construction. Maybe, maybe, we can somehow use modular arithmetic, but I'm not seeing it.
          $endgroup$
          – Rand al'Thor
          May 10 at 13:25




          $begingroup$
          @Fifth_H0r5eman I racked my brains for a neater method ... FWIW, when I found the Wikipedia page for cyclic numbers it described the same construction. Maybe, maybe, we can somehow use modular arithmetic, but I'm not seeing it.
          $endgroup$
          – Rand al'Thor
          May 10 at 13:25












          $begingroup$
          Oh I'm not criticising the method, just that I felt it was the standard way to calculate any of this form so was almost redundant. Finding the actual number wasn't such a problem, finding a way to memorise it without tedious calculation however seems the greater feat. There's a fairly high proportion of double digits, but even then given the length of the number, short of splitting it into segments and base changes, I can't see a simple way...
          $endgroup$
          – Fifth_H0r5eman
          May 10 at 13:32




          $begingroup$
          Oh I'm not criticising the method, just that I felt it was the standard way to calculate any of this form so was almost redundant. Finding the actual number wasn't such a problem, finding a way to memorise it without tedious calculation however seems the greater feat. There's a fairly high proportion of double digits, but even then given the length of the number, short of splitting it into segments and base changes, I can't see a simple way...
          $endgroup$
          – Fifth_H0r5eman
          May 10 at 13:32












          $begingroup$
          @Fifth_H0r5eman I found another method which does use the special property of $p$, but it seems computationally harder than the first method.
          $endgroup$
          – Rand al'Thor
          May 10 at 13:39




          $begingroup$
          @Fifth_H0r5eman I found another method which does use the special property of $p$, but it seems computationally harder than the first method.
          $endgroup$
          – Rand al'Thor
          May 10 at 13:39












          $begingroup$
          Oh dear, that really is an unpleasant algorithm to look at. It's really just the inverse of the first, but due to the old left-to-right bias the multiplication instead of division doesn't manage to make it look very friendly! (Especially the 10^8).
          $endgroup$
          – Fifth_H0r5eman
          May 10 at 13:45




          $begingroup$
          Oh dear, that really is an unpleasant algorithm to look at. It's really just the inverse of the first, but due to the old left-to-right bias the multiplication instead of division doesn't manage to make it look very friendly! (Especially the 10^8).
          $endgroup$
          – Fifth_H0r5eman
          May 10 at 13:45











          3












          $begingroup$

          Surely not the intended answer



          Jaap has of course identified the intended sequence. It seems to me that all the algorithms described so far are strictly more complicated than the following, which is simply another way of formulating the division operation and seems entirely straightforward to do in one's head. However, it can't be the intended answer because supposedly the process is much simpler for this number than for its "twin"'s. (Which the process described below isn't.)




          You need to keep track of a single number between 0 and 59 inclusive, and to be able to multiply and divide small numbers. Initially, your number is 10. Now repeat the following process. 1. Multiply the number by 10. 2. Divide it by 59. 3a. Next digit is the quotient. 3b. New value of the number is the remainder. 4. Repeat these steps until the number reaches 1.




          I have trouble understanding how any other process could actually be simpler than this. (But perhaps I'll be surprised!)






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            You sure will be surprised.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 11 at 2:09










          • $begingroup$
            Or perhaps we have different ideas about what's easier than what, of course :-).
            $endgroup$
            – Gareth McCaughan
            May 11 at 2:16















          3












          $begingroup$

          Surely not the intended answer



          Jaap has of course identified the intended sequence. It seems to me that all the algorithms described so far are strictly more complicated than the following, which is simply another way of formulating the division operation and seems entirely straightforward to do in one's head. However, it can't be the intended answer because supposedly the process is much simpler for this number than for its "twin"'s. (Which the process described below isn't.)




          You need to keep track of a single number between 0 and 59 inclusive, and to be able to multiply and divide small numbers. Initially, your number is 10. Now repeat the following process. 1. Multiply the number by 10. 2. Divide it by 59. 3a. Next digit is the quotient. 3b. New value of the number is the remainder. 4. Repeat these steps until the number reaches 1.




          I have trouble understanding how any other process could actually be simpler than this. (But perhaps I'll be surprised!)






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            You sure will be surprised.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 11 at 2:09










          • $begingroup$
            Or perhaps we have different ideas about what's easier than what, of course :-).
            $endgroup$
            – Gareth McCaughan
            May 11 at 2:16













          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          Surely not the intended answer



          Jaap has of course identified the intended sequence. It seems to me that all the algorithms described so far are strictly more complicated than the following, which is simply another way of formulating the division operation and seems entirely straightforward to do in one's head. However, it can't be the intended answer because supposedly the process is much simpler for this number than for its "twin"'s. (Which the process described below isn't.)




          You need to keep track of a single number between 0 and 59 inclusive, and to be able to multiply and divide small numbers. Initially, your number is 10. Now repeat the following process. 1. Multiply the number by 10. 2. Divide it by 59. 3a. Next digit is the quotient. 3b. New value of the number is the remainder. 4. Repeat these steps until the number reaches 1.




          I have trouble understanding how any other process could actually be simpler than this. (But perhaps I'll be surprised!)






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Surely not the intended answer



          Jaap has of course identified the intended sequence. It seems to me that all the algorithms described so far are strictly more complicated than the following, which is simply another way of formulating the division operation and seems entirely straightforward to do in one's head. However, it can't be the intended answer because supposedly the process is much simpler for this number than for its "twin"'s. (Which the process described below isn't.)




          You need to keep track of a single number between 0 and 59 inclusive, and to be able to multiply and divide small numbers. Initially, your number is 10. Now repeat the following process. 1. Multiply the number by 10. 2. Divide it by 59. 3a. Next digit is the quotient. 3b. New value of the number is the remainder. 4. Repeat these steps until the number reaches 1.




          I have trouble understanding how any other process could actually be simpler than this. (But perhaps I'll be surprised!)







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered May 11 at 2:03









          Gareth McCaughanGareth McCaughan

          72.5k3181279




          72.5k3181279











          • $begingroup$
            You sure will be surprised.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 11 at 2:09










          • $begingroup$
            Or perhaps we have different ideas about what's easier than what, of course :-).
            $endgroup$
            – Gareth McCaughan
            May 11 at 2:16
















          • $begingroup$
            You sure will be surprised.
            $endgroup$
            – Uvc
            May 11 at 2:09










          • $begingroup$
            Or perhaps we have different ideas about what's easier than what, of course :-).
            $endgroup$
            – Gareth McCaughan
            May 11 at 2:16















          $begingroup$
          You sure will be surprised.
          $endgroup$
          – Uvc
          May 11 at 2:09




          $begingroup$
          You sure will be surprised.
          $endgroup$
          – Uvc
          May 11 at 2:09












          $begingroup$
          Or perhaps we have different ideas about what's easier than what, of course :-).
          $endgroup$
          – Gareth McCaughan
          May 11 at 2:16




          $begingroup$
          Or perhaps we have different ideas about what's easier than what, of course :-).
          $endgroup$
          – Gareth McCaughan
          May 11 at 2:16

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f83759%2flong-digital-sequence-16xxxxxxxxxxxxx61%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

          Bruxelas-Capital Índice Historia | Composición | Situación lingüística | Clima | Cidades irmandadas | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióneO uso das linguas en Bruxelas e a situación do neerlandés"Rexión de Bruxelas Capital"o orixinalSitio da rexiónPáxina de Bruselas no sitio da Oficina de Promoción Turística de Valonia e BruxelasMapa Interactivo da Rexión de Bruxelas-CapitaleeWorldCat332144929079854441105155190212ID28008674080552-90000 0001 0666 3698n94104302ID540940339365017018237

          What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company