Integer sequence $(x_{n})$ is defined as follows; $x_{1} = 1$, and for each integer $n \geq 1$, $x_{n+1}$ is equal to the largest number that can be obtained by permutation of the digits of $x_{n}+2$. Find the smallest $n$ for which the decimal representation of $x_{n}$ contains exactly $2022$ digits
Problem
Source: 2022 Nigerian MO Round 3/Problem 1
Tags: Sequence, algebra
12.12.2022 21:35
Bump.....
13.12.2022 19:05
Rukevwe wrote: Integer sequence $(x_{n})$ is defined as follows; $x_{1} = 1$, and for each integer $n \geq 1$, $x_{n+1}$ is equal to the largest number that can be obtained by permutation of the digits of $x_{n}+2$. Find the smallest $n$ for which the decimal representation of $x_{n}$ contains exactly $2022$ digits 1) Definition and properties of "pretty numbers"
2) How many elements with exactly $n$ digits in the sequence $x_n$ There are $5$ one-digit numbers in the sequence : $1,3,5,7,9$ There are $9$ two-digits numbers in the sequence : $11,31,33,53,55,75,77,97,99$ First next number (first three-digits number) is $110$, which is pretty number $(1,2,1,0)$ Then, using 1.3), we need $13$ steps to go from $(1,2,1,0)$ to $(1,1,3,0)$ And so there are $13$ three-digits numbers in the sequence. From there, we'll only need 1.4 to progress and we get that we have exactly $9(n-1)$ n-digits numbers where $n\ge 4$ 3) Answer And so the number of elements of less than $2022$ digits is $5+9+13+\sum_{k=4}^{2021}9(k-1)$ $=27+9\frac{2018\times 2023}2$ $=18370890$ Hence the answer : first element with $2022$ digits is $\boxed{x_{18370891}}$
16.12.2022 20:13
Nice. But in the properties of pretty numbers, there are some latex errors. Can you please fix those for more readability? I'm actually finding it a bit hard to read with all the latex syntax in the way. (Well, not really, but still...)
16.12.2022 20:55
Rukevwe wrote: Nice. But in the properties of pretty numbers, there are some latex errors. Can you please fix those for more readability? I'm actually finding it a bit hard to read with all the latex syntax in the way. (Well, not really, but still...) Fixed Latex error in 1.4
16.12.2022 23:43
Thanks. 1.1?
17.12.2022 10:55
Rukevwe wrote: Thanks. 1.1? Hmmmmffff Sorry. Edited too 1.1 Thanks