729 lines
39 KiB
Markdown
729 lines
39 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: Digit Sum Patterns and Modular Arithmetic
|
|
date: 2021-12-30T15:42:40-08:00
|
|
tags: ["Ruby", "Mathematics"]
|
|
description: "In this article, we explore the patterns created by remainders from division."
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
When I was in elementary school, our class was briefly visited by our school's headmaster.
|
|
He was there for a demonstration, probably intended to get us to practice our multiplication tables.
|
|
_"Pick a number"_, he said, _"And I'll teach you how to draw a pattern from it."_
|
|
|
|
The procedure was rather simple:
|
|
|
|
1. Pick a number between 2 and 8 (inclusive).
|
|
2. Start generating positive multiples of this number. If you picked 8,
|
|
your multiples would be 8, 16, 24, and so on.
|
|
3. If a multiple is more than one digit long, sum its digits. For instance, for 16, write 1+6=7.
|
|
If the digits add up to a number that's still more than 1 digit long, add up the digits of _that_
|
|
number (and so on).
|
|
4. Start drawing on a grid. For each resulting number, draw that many squares in one direction,
|
|
and then "turn". Using 8 as our example, we could draw 8 up, 7 to the right, 6 down, 5 to the left,
|
|
and so on.
|
|
5. As soon as you come back to where you started (_"And that will always happen"_, said my headmaster),
|
|
you're done. You should have drawn a pretty pattern!
|
|
|
|
Sticking with our example of 8, the pattern you'd end up with would be something like this:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_8.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 8." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 8." >}}
|
|
|
|
Before we go any further, let's observe that it's not too hard to write code to do this.
|
|
For instance, the "add digits" algorithm can be naively
|
|
written by turning the number into a string (`17` becomes `"17"`), splitting that string into
|
|
characters (`"17"` becomes `["1", "7"]`), turning each of these character back into numbers
|
|
(the array becomes `[1, 7]`) and then computing the sum of the array, leaving `8`.
|
|
|
|
{{< codelines "Ruby" "patterns/patterns.rb" 3 8 >}}
|
|
|
|
We may now encode the "drawing" logic. At any point, there's a "direction" we're going - which
|
|
I'll denote by the Ruby symbols `:top`, `:bottom`, `:left`, and `:right`. Each step, we take
|
|
the current `x`,`y` coordinates (our position on the grid), and shift them by `n` in a particular
|
|
direction `dir`. We also return the new direction alongside the new coordinates.
|
|
|
|
{{< codelines "Ruby" "patterns/patterns.rb" 10 21 >}}
|
|
|
|
The top-level algorithm is captured by the following code, which produces a list of
|
|
coordinates in the order that you'd visit them.
|
|
|
|
{{< codelines "Ruby" "patterns/patterns.rb" 23 35 >}}
|
|
|
|
I will omit the code for generating SVGs from the body of the article -- you can always find the complete
|
|
source code in this blog's Git repo (or by clicking the link in the code block above). Let's run the code on a few other numbers. Here's one for 4, for instance:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_4.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 4." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 4." >}}
|
|
|
|
And one more for 2, which I don't find as pretty.
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_2.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 2." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 2." >}}
|
|
|
|
It really does always work out! Young me was amazed, though I would often run out of space on my
|
|
grid paper to complete the pattern, or miscount the length of my lines partway in. It was only
|
|
recently that I started thinking about _why_ it works, and I think I figured it out. Let's take a look!
|
|
|
|
### Is a number divisible by 3?
|
|
You might find the whole "add up the digits of a number" thing familiar, and for good reason:
|
|
it's one way to check if a number is divisible by 3. The quick summary of this result is,
|
|
|
|
> If the sum of the digits of a number is divisible by 3, then so is the whole number.
|
|
|
|
For example, the sum of the digits of 72 is 9, which is divisible by 3; 72 itself is correspondingly
|
|
also divisible by 3, since 24*3=72. On the other hand, the sum of the digits of 82 is 10, which
|
|
is _not_ divisible by 3; 82 isn't divisible by 3 either (it's one more than 81, which _is_ divisible by 3).
|
|
|
|
Why does _this_ work? Let's talk remainders.
|
|
|
|
If a number doesn't cleanly divide another (we're sticking to integers here),
|
|
what's left behind is the remainder. For instance, dividing 7 by 3 leaves us with a remainder 1.
|
|
On the other hand, if the remainder is zero, then that means that our dividend is divisible by the
|
|
divisor (what a mouthful). In mathematics, we typically use
|
|
\\(a|b\\) to say \\(a\\) divides \\(b\\), or, as we have seen above, that the remainder of dividing
|
|
\\(b\\) by \\(a\\) is zero.
|
|
|
|
Working with remainders actually comes up pretty frequently in discrete math. A well-known
|
|
example I'm aware of is the [RSA algorithm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)),
|
|
which works with remainders resulting from dividing by a product of two large prime numbers.
|
|
But what's a good way to write, in numbers and symbols, the claim that "\\(a\\) divides \\(b\\)
|
|
with remainder \\(r\\)"? Well, we know that dividing yields a quotient (possibly zero) and a remainder
|
|
(also possibly zero). Let's call the quotient \\(q\\).
|
|
{{< sidenote "right" "r-less-note" "Then, we know that when dividing \(b\) by \(a\) we have:" >}}
|
|
It's important to point out that for the equation in question to represent division
|
|
with quotient \(q\) and remainder \(r\), it must be that \(r\) is less than \(a\).
|
|
Otherwise, you could write \(r = s + a\) for some \(s\), and end up with
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
\begin{aligned}
|
|
& b = qa + r \\
|
|
\Rightarrow\ & b = qa + (s + a) \\
|
|
\Rightarrow\ & b = (q+1)a + s
|
|
\end{aligned}
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
In plain English, if \(r\) is bigger than \(a\) after you've divided, you haven't
|
|
taken out "as much \(a\) from your dividend as you could", and the actual quotient is
|
|
larger than \(q\).
|
|
{{< /sidenote >}}
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
\begin{aligned}
|
|
& b = qa + r \\
|
|
\Rightarrow\ & b-r = qa \\
|
|
\end{aligned}
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
We only really care about the remainder here, not the quotient, since it's the remainder
|
|
that determines if something is divisible or not. From the form of the second equation, we can
|
|
deduce that \\(b-r\\) is divisible by \\(a\\) (it's literally equal to \\(a\\) times \\(q\\),
|
|
so it must be divisible). Thus, we can write:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
a|(b-r)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
There's another notation for this type of statement, though. To say that the difference between
|
|
two numbers is divisible by a third number, we write:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
b \equiv r\ (\text{mod}\ a)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
Some things that _seem_ like they would work from this "equation-like" notation do, indeed, work.
|
|
For instance, we can "add two equations" (I'll omit the proof here; jump down to [this
|
|
section](#adding-two-congruences) to see how it works):
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
\textbf{if}\ a \equiv b\ (\text{mod}\ k)\ \textbf{and}\ c \equiv d, (\text{mod}\ k),\ \textbf{then}\
|
|
a+c \equiv b+d\ (\text{mod}\ k).
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
Multiplying both sides by the same number (call it \\(n\\)) also works (once
|
|
again, you can find the proof in [this section below](#multiplying-both-sides-of-a-congruence)).
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
\textbf{if}\ a \equiv b\ (\text{mod}\ k),\ \textbf{then}\ na \equiv nb\ (\text{mod}\ k).
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
Ok, that's a lot of notation and other _stuff_. Let's talk specifics. Of particular interest
|
|
is the number 10, since our number system is _base ten_ (the value of a digit is multiplied by 10
|
|
for every place it moves to the left). The remainder of 10 when dividing by 3 is 1. Thus,
|
|
we have:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
10 \equiv 1\ (\text{mod}\ 3)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
From this, we can deduce that multiplying by 10, when it comes to remainders from dividing by 3,
|
|
is the same as multiplying by 1. We can clearly see this by multiplying both sides by \\(n\\).
|
|
In our notation:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
10n \equiv n\ (\text{mod}\ 3)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
But wait, there's more. Take any power of ten, be it a hundred, a thousand, or a million.
|
|
Multiplying by that number is _also_ equivalent to multiplying by 1!
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
10^kn = 10\times10\times...\times 10n \equiv n\ (\text{mod}\ 3)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
We can put this to good use. Let's take a large number that's divisible by 3. This number
|
|
will be made of multiple digits, like \\(d_2d_1d_0\\). Note that I do __not__ mean multiplication
|
|
here, but specifically that each \\(d_i\\) is a number between 0 and 9 in a particular place
|
|
in the number -- it's a digit. Now, we can write:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
\begin{aligned}
|
|
0 &\equiv d_2d_1d_0 \\
|
|
& = 100d_2 + 10d_1 + d_0 \\
|
|
& \equiv d_2 + d_1 + d_0
|
|
\end{aligned}
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
We have just found that \\(d_2+d_1+d_0 \\equiv 0\\ (\\text{mod}\ 3)\\), or that the sum of the digits
|
|
is also divisible by 3. The logic we use works in the other direction, too: if the sum of the digits
|
|
is divisible, then so is the actual number.
|
|
|
|
There's only one property of the number 3 we used for this reasoning: that \\(10 \\equiv 1\\ (\\text{mod}\\ 3)\\). But it so happens that there's another number that has this property: 9. This means
|
|
that to check if a number is divisible by _nine_, we can also check if the sum of the digits is
|
|
divisible by 9. Try it on 18, 27, 81, and 198.
|
|
|
|
Here's the main takeaway: __summing the digits in the way described by my headmaster is
|
|
the same as figuring out the remainder of the number from dividing by 9__. Well, almost.
|
|
The difference is the case of 9 itself: the __remainder__ here is 0, but we actually use 9
|
|
to draw our line. We can actually try just using 0. Here's the updated `sum_digits` code:
|
|
|
|
```Ruby
|
|
def sum_digits(n)
|
|
n % 9
|
|
end
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The results are similarly cool:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_8_mod.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 8." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 8 by just using remainders." >}}
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_4_mod.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 4." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 4 by just using remainders." >}}
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_2_mod.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 2." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 2 by just using remainders." >}}
|
|
|
|
### Sequences of Remainders
|
|
So now we know what the digit-summing algorithm is really doing. But that algorithm isn't all there
|
|
is to it! We're repeatedly applying this algorithm over and over to multiples of another number. How
|
|
does this work, and why does it always loop around? Why don't we ever spiral farther and farther
|
|
from the center?
|
|
|
|
First, let's take a closer look at our sequence of multiples. Suppose we're working with multiples
|
|
of some number \\(n\\). Let's write \\(a_i\\) for the \\(i\\)th multiple. Then, we end up with:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
\begin{aligned}
|
|
a_1 &= n \\
|
|
a_2 &= 2n \\
|
|
a_3 &= 3n \\
|
|
a_4 &= 4n \\
|
|
... \\
|
|
a_i &= in
|
|
\end{aligned}
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
This is actually called an [arithmetic sequence](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ArithmeticProgression.html);
|
|
for each multiple, the number increases by \\(n\\).
|
|
|
|
Here's a first seemingly trivial point: at some time, the remainder of \\(a_i\\) will repeat.
|
|
There are only so many remainders when dividing by nine: specifically, the only possible remainders
|
|
are the numbers 0 through 8. We can invoke the [pigeonhole principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle) and say that after 9 multiples, we will have to have looped. Another way
|
|
of seeing this is as follows:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
\begin{aligned}
|
|
& 9 \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ 9) \\
|
|
\Rightarrow\ & 9n \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ 9) \\
|
|
\Rightarrow\ & 10n \equiv n\ (\text{mod}\ 9) \\
|
|
\end{aligned}
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
The 10th multiple is equivalent to n, and will thus have the same remainder. The looping may
|
|
happen earlier: the simplest case is if we pick 9 as our \\(n\\), in which case the remainder
|
|
will always be 0.
|
|
|
|
Repeating remainders alone do not guarantee that we will return to the center. The repeating sequence 1,2,3,4
|
|
will certainly cause a spiral. The reason is that, if we start facing "up", we will always move up 1
|
|
and down 3 after four steps, leaving us 2 steps below where we started. Next, the cycle will repeat,
|
|
and since turning four times leaves us facing "up" again, we'll end up getting _further_ away. Here's
|
|
a picture that captures this behvior:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_1_4.svg" caption="Spiral generated by the number 1 with divisor 4." class="tiny" alt="Spiral generated by the number 1 by summing digits." >}}
|
|
|
|
And here's one more where the cycle repeats after 8 steps instead of 4. You can see that it also
|
|
leads to a spiral:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_1_8.svg" caption="Spiral generated by the number 1 with divisor 8." class="tiny" alt="Spiral generated by the number 1 by summing digits." >}}
|
|
|
|
From this, we can devise a simple condition to prevent spiraling -- the _length_ of the sequence before
|
|
it repeats _cannot be a multiple of 4_. This way, whenever the cycle restarts, it will do so in a
|
|
different direction: backwards, turned once to the left, or turned once to the right. Clearly repeating
|
|
the sequence backwards is guaranteed to take us back to the start. The same is true for the left and right-turn sequences, though it's less obvious. If drawing our sequence once left us turned to the right,
|
|
drawing our sequence twice will leave us turned more to the right. On a grid, two right turns are
|
|
the same as turning around. The third repetition will then undo the effects of the first one
|
|
(since we're facing backwards now), and the fourth will undo the effects of the second.
|
|
|
|
There is an exception to this
|
|
multiple-of-4 rule: if a sequence makes it back to the origin right before it starts over.
|
|
In that case, even if it's facing the very same direction it started with, all is well -- things
|
|
are just like when it first started, and the cycle repeats. I haven't found a sequence that does this,
|
|
so for our purposes, we'll stick with avoiding multiples of 4.
|
|
|
|
Okay, so we want to avoid cycles with lengths divisible by four. What does it mean for a cycle to be of length _k_? It effectively means the following:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
\begin{aligned}
|
|
& a_{k+1} \equiv a_1\ (\text{mod}\ 9) \\
|
|
\Rightarrow\ & (k+1)n \equiv n\ (\text{mod}\ 9) \\
|
|
\Rightarrow\ & kn \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ 9) \\
|
|
\end{aligned}
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
If we could divide both sides by \\(k\\), we could go one more step:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
n \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ 9) \\
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
That is, \\(n\\) would be divisible by 9! This would contradict our choice of \\(n\\) to be
|
|
between 2 and 8. What went wrong? Turns out, it's that last step: we can't always divide by \\(k\\).
|
|
Some values of \\(k\\) are special, and it's only _those_ values that can serve as cycle lengths
|
|
without causing a contradiction. So, what are they?
|
|
|
|
They're values that have a common factor with 9 (an incomplete explanation is in
|
|
[this section below](#invertible-numbers-textmod-d-share-no-factors-with-d)). There are many numbers that have a common
|
|
factor with 9; 3, 6, 9, 12, and so on. However, those can't all serve as cycle lengths: as we said,
|
|
cycles can't get longer than 9. This leaves us with 3, 6, and 9 as _possible_ cycle lengths,
|
|
none of which are divisible by 4. We've eliminated the possibility of spirals!
|
|
|
|
### Generalizing to Arbitrary Divisors
|
|
The trick was easily executable on paper because there's an easy way to compute the remainder of a number
|
|
when dividing by 9 (adding up the digits). However, we have a computer, and we don't need to fall back on such
|
|
cool-but-complicated techniques. To replicate our original behavior, we can just write:
|
|
|
|
```Ruby
|
|
def sum_digits(n)
|
|
x = n % 9
|
|
x == 0 ? 9 : x
|
|
end
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
But now, we can change the `9` to something else. There are some numbers we'd like to avoid - specifically,
|
|
we want to avoid those numbers that would allow for cycles of length 4 (or of a length divisible by 4).
|
|
If we didn't avoid them, we might run into infinite loops, where our pencil might end up moving
|
|
further and further from the center.
|
|
|
|
Actually, let's revisit that. When we were playing with paths of length \\(k\\) while dividing by 9,
|
|
we noted that the only _possible_ values of \\(k\\) are those that share a common factor with 9,
|
|
specifically 3, 6 and 9. But that's not quite as strong as it could be: try as you might, but
|
|
you will not find a cycle of length 6 when dividing by 9. The same is true if we pick 6 instead of 9,
|
|
and try to find a cycle of length 4. Even though 4 _does_ have a common factor with 6, and thus
|
|
is not ruled out as a valid cycle by our previous condition, we don't find any cycles of length 4.
|
|
|
|
So what is it that _really_ determines if there can be cycles or not?
|
|
|
|
Let's do some more playing around. What are the actual cycle lengths when we divide by 9?
|
|
For all but two numbers, the cycle lengths are 9. The two special numbers are 6 and 3, and they end up
|
|
with a cycle length of 3. From this, we can say that the cycle length seems to depend on whether or
|
|
not our \\(n\\) has any common factors with the divisor.
|
|
|
|
Let's explore this some more with a different divisor, say 12. We fill find that 8 has a cycle length
|
|
of 3, 7 has a cycle length of 12, 9 has a cycle length of 4. What's
|
|
happening here? To see, let's divide 12 __by these cycle lengths__. For 8, we get (12/3) = 4.
|
|
For 7, this works out to 1. For 9, it works out to 3. These new numbers, 4, 1, and 3, are actually
|
|
the __greatest common factors__ of 8, 7, and 3 with 12, respectively. The greatest common factor
|
|
of two numbers is the largest number that divides them both. We thus write down our guess
|
|
for the length of a cycle:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
k = \frac{d}{\text{gcd}(d,n)}
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
Where \\(d\\) is our divisor, which has been 9 until just recently, and \\(\\text{gcd}(d,n)\\)
|
|
is the greatest common factor of \\(d\\) and \\(n\\). This equation is in agreement
|
|
with our experiment for \\(d = 9\\), too. Why might this be? Recall that sequences with
|
|
period \\(k\\) imply the following congruence:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
kn \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ d)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
Here I've replaced 9 with \\(d\\), since we're trying to make it work for _any_ divisor, not just 9.
|
|
Now, suppose the greatest common divisor of \\(n\\) and \\(d\\) is some number \\(f\\). Then,
|
|
since this number divides \\(n\\) and \\(d\\), we can write \\(n=fm\\) for some \\(m\\), and
|
|
\\(d=fg\\) for some \\(g\\). We can rewrite our congruence as follows:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
kfm \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ fg)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
We can simplify this a little bit. Recall that what this congruence really means is that the
|
|
difference of \\(kfm\\) and \\(0\\), which is just \\(kfm\\), is divisible by \\(fg\\):
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
fg|kfm
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
But if \\(fg\\) divides \\(kfm\\), it must be that \\(g\\) divides \\(km\\)! This, in turn, means
|
|
we can write:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
g|km
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
Can we distill this statement even further? It turns out that we can. Remember that we got \\(g\\)
|
|
and \\(m\\) by dividing \\(d\\) and \\(n\\) by their greatest common factor, \\(f\\). This, in
|
|
turn, means that \\(g\\) and \\(m\\) have no more common factors that aren't equal to 1 (see
|
|
[this section below](#numbers-divided-by-their-textgcd-have-no-common-factors)). From this, in turn, we can deduce that \\(m\\) is not
|
|
relevant to \\(g\\) dividing \\(km\\), and we get:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
g|k
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
That is, we get that \\(k\\) must be divisible by \\(g\\). Recall that we got \\(g\\) by dividing
|
|
\\(d\\) by \\(f\\), which is our largest common factor -- aka \\(\\text{gcd}(d,n)\\). We can thus
|
|
write:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
\frac{d}{\text{gcd}(d,n)}|k
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
Let's stop and appreciate this result. We have found a condition that is required for a sequnce
|
|
of remainders from dividing by \\(d\\) (which was 9 in the original problem) to repeat after \\(k\\)
|
|
numbers. Furthermore, all of our steps can be performed in reverse, which means that if a \\(k\\)
|
|
matches this conditon, we can work backwards and determine that a sequence of numbers has
|
|
to repeat after \\(k\\) steps.
|
|
|
|
Multiple \\(k\\)s will match this condition, and that's not surprising. If a sequence repeats after 5 steps,
|
|
it also repeats after 10, 15, and so on. We're interested in the first time our sequences repeat after
|
|
taking any steps, which means we have to pick the smallest possible non-zero value of \\(k\\). The smallest
|
|
number divisible by \\(d/\\text{gcd}(d,n)\\) is \\(d/\\text{gcd}(d,n)\\) itself. We thus confirm
|
|
our hypothesis:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
k = \frac{d}{\text{gcd}(d,n)}
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
Lastly, recall that our patterns would spiral away from the center whenever a \\(k\\) is a multiple of 4. Now that we know what
|
|
\\(k\\) is, we can restate this as "\\(d/\\text{gcd}(d,n)\\) is divisible by 4". But if we pick
|
|
\\(n=d-1\\), the greatest common factor has to be \\(1\\) (see [this section below](#divisors-of-n-and-n-1)), so we can even further simplify this "\\(d\\) is divisible by 4".
|
|
Thus, we can state simply that any divisor divisible by 4 is off-limits, as it will induce loops.
|
|
For example, pick \\(d=4\\). Running our algorithm
|
|
{{< sidenote "right" "constructive-note" "for \(n=d-1=3\)," >}}
|
|
Did you catch that? From our work above, we didn't just find a condition that would prevent spirals;
|
|
we also found the precise number that would result in a spiral if this condition were violated!
|
|
This is because our proof is <em>constructive</em>: instead of just claiming the existence
|
|
of a thing, it also shows how to get that thing. Our proof in the earlier section (which
|
|
claimed that the divisor 9 would never create spirals) went by contradiction, which was
|
|
<em>not</em> constructive. Repeating that proof for a general \(d\) wouldn't have told us
|
|
the specific numbers that would spiral.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
This is the reason that direct proofs tend to be preferred over proofs by contradiction.
|
|
{{< /sidenote >}} we indeed find an infinite
|
|
spiral:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_3_4.svg" caption="Spiral generated by the number 3 with divisor 4." class="tiny" alt="Spiral generated by the number 3 by summing digits." >}}
|
|
|
|
Let's try again. Pick \\(d=8\\); then, for \\(n=d-1=7\\), we also get a spiral:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_7_8.svg" caption="Spiral generated by the number 7 with divisor 8." class="tiny" alt="Spiral generated by the number 7 by summing digits." >}}
|
|
|
|
A poem comes to mind:
|
|
> Turning and turning in the widening gyre
|
|
>
|
|
> The falcon cannot hear the falconner;
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, there are plenty of numbers that are not divisible by four, and we can pick
|
|
any of them! I'll pick primes for good measure. Here are a few good ones from using 13
|
|
(which corresponds to summing digits of base-14 numbers):
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_8_13.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 8 in base 14." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 8 by summing digits." >}}
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_4_13.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 4 in base 14." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 4 by summing digits." >}}
|
|
|
|
Here's one from dividing by 17 (base-18 numbers).
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_5_17.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 5 in base 18." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 5 by summing digits." >}}
|
|
|
|
Finally, base-30:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_2_29.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 2 in base 30." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 2 by summing digits." >}}
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_6_29.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 6 in base 30." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 6 by summing digits." >}}
|
|
|
|
### Generalizing to Arbitrary Numbers of Directions
|
|
What if we didn't turn 90 degrees each time? What, if, instead, we turned 120 degrees (so that
|
|
turning 3 times, not 4, would leave you facing the same direction you started)? We can pretty easily
|
|
do that, too. Let's call this number of turns \\(c\\). Up until now, we had \\(c=4\\).
|
|
|
|
First, let's update our condition. Before, we had "\\(d\\) cannot be divisible by 4". Now,
|
|
we aren't constraining ourselves to only 4, but rather using a generic variable \\(c\\).
|
|
We then end up with "\\(d\\) cannot be divisible by \\(c\\)". For instance, suppose we kept
|
|
our divisor as 9 for the time being, but started turning 3 times instead of 4. This
|
|
violates our divisibility condtion, and we once again end up with a spiral:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_8_9_t3.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 8 in base 10 while turning 3 times." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 3 by summing digits and turning 120 degrees." >}}
|
|
|
|
If, on the other hand, we pick \\(d=8\\) and \\(c=3\\), we get patterns for all numbers just like we hoped.
|
|
Here's one such pattern:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_7_8_t3.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 7 in base 9 while turning 3 times." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 7 by summing digits in base 9 and turning 120 degrees." >}}
|
|
|
|
Hold on a moment; it's actully not so obvious why our condition _still_ works. When we just turned
|
|
on a grid, things were simple. As long as we didn't end up facing the same way we started, we will
|
|
eventually perform the exact same motions in reverse. The same is not true when turning 120 degrees, like
|
|
we suggested. Here's an animated circle all of the turns we would make:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="turn_3_1.gif" caption="Orientations when turning 120 degrees" class="small" alt="Possible orientations when turning 120 degrees." >}}
|
|
|
|
We never quite do the exact _opposite_ of any one of our movements. So then, will we come back to the
|
|
origin anyway? Well, let's start simple. Suppose we always turn by exactly one 120-degree increment
|
|
(we might end up turning more or less, just like we may end up turning left, right, or back in the
|
|
90 degree case). Each time you face a particular direciton, after performing a cycle, you will have
|
|
moved some distance away from when you started, and turned 120 degrees. If you then repeat the
|
|
cycle, you will once again move by the same offset as before, but this time the offset will
|
|
be rotated 120 degrees, and you will have rotated a total of 240 degrees. Finally, performing
|
|
the cycle a third time, you'll have moved by the same offset (rotated 240 degrees).
|
|
|
|
If you overaly each offset such that their starting points overlap, they will look very similar
|
|
to that circle above. And now, here's the beauty: you can arrange these rotated offsets into
|
|
a triangle:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="turn_3_anim.gif" caption="Triangle formed by three 120-degree turns." class="small" alt="Triangle formed by three 120-degree turns." >}}
|
|
|
|
As long as you rotate by the same amount each time (and you will, since the cycle length determines
|
|
how many times you turn, and the cycle length never changes), you can do so for any number
|
|
of directions. For instance, here's a similar visualization in which
|
|
there are 5 possible directions, and where each turn is consequently 72 degrees:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="turn_5_anim.gif" caption="Pentagon formed by five 72-degree turns." class="small" alt="Pentagon formed by five 72-degree turns." >}}
|
|
|
|
Each of these polygon shapes forms a loop. If you walk along its sides, you will eventually end up exactly
|
|
where you started. This confirms that if you end up making one turn at the end of each cycle, you
|
|
will eventually end up right where you started.
|
|
|
|
Things aren't always as simple as making a single turn, though. Let's go back to the version
|
|
of the problem in which we have 3 possible directions, and think about what would happen if we turned by 240 degrees at a time: 2 turns
|
|
instead of 1?
|
|
|
|
Even though we first turn a whole 240 degrees, the second time we turn we "overshoot" our initial bearing, and end up at 120 degrees
|
|
compared to it. As soon as we turn 240 more degrees (turning the third time), we end up back at 0.
|
|
In short, even though we "visited" each bearing in a different order, we visited them all, and
|
|
exactly once at that. Here's a visualization:
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="turn_3_2.gif" caption="Orientations when turning 120 degrees, twice at a time" class="small" alt="Possible orientations when turning 120 degrees, twice at a time." >}}
|
|
|
|
Note that even though in the above picture it looks like we're just turning left instead of right,
|
|
that's not the case; a single turn of 240 degrees is more than half the circle, so our second
|
|
bearing ends up on the left side of the circle even though we turn right.
|
|
|
|
Just to make sure we really see what's happening, let's try this when there are 5 possible directions,
|
|
and when we still make two turns (now of 72 degrees each)
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="turn_5_2.gif" caption="Orientations when turning 72 degrees, twice at a time" class="small" alt="Possible orientations when turning 72 degrees, twice at a time." >}}
|
|
|
|
Let's try put some mathematical backing to this "visited them all" idea, and turning in general.
|
|
First, observe that as soon as we turn 360 degrees, it's as good as not turning at all - we end
|
|
up facing up again. If we turned 480 degrees (that is, two turns of 240 degrees each), the first
|
|
360 can be safely ignored, since it puts us where we started; only the 120 degrees that remain
|
|
are needed to figure out our final bearing. In short, the final direction we're facing is
|
|
the remainder from dividing by 360. We already know how to formulate this using modular arithmetic:
|
|
if we turn \\(t\\) degrees \\(k\\) times, and end up at final bearing (remainder) \\(b\\), this
|
|
is captured by:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
kt \equiv b\ (\text{mod}\ 360)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
Of course, if we end up facing the same way we started, we get the familiar equivalence:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
kt \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ 360)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
Even though the variables in this equivalence mean different things now than they did last
|
|
time we saw it, the mathematical properties remain the same. For instance, we can say that
|
|
after \\(360/\\text{gcd}(360, t)\\) turns, we'll end up facing the way that we started.
|
|
|
|
So far, so good. What I don't like about this, though, is that we have all of these
|
|
numbers of degrees all over our equations: 72 degrees, 144 degrees, and so forth. However,
|
|
something like 73 degrees (if there are five possible directions) is just not a valid bearing,
|
|
and nor is 71. We have so many possible degrees (360 of them, to be exact), but we're only
|
|
using a handful! That's wasteful. Instead, observe that for \\(c\\) possible turns,
|
|
the smallest possible turn angle is \\(360/c\\). Let's call this angle \\(\\theta\\) (theta).
|
|
Now, notice that we always turn in multiples of \\(\\theta\\): a single turn moves us \\(\\theta\\)
|
|
degrees, two turns move us \\(2\\theta\\) degrees, and so on. If we define \\(r\\) to be
|
|
the number of turns that we find ourselves rotated by after a single cycle,
|
|
we have \\(t=r\\theta\\), and our turning equation can be written as:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
kr\theta \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ c\theta)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
Now, once again, recall that the above equivalence is just notation for the following:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
\begin{aligned}
|
|
& c\theta|kr\theta \\
|
|
\Leftrightarrow\ & c|kr
|
|
\end{aligned}
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
And finally, observing that \\(kr=kr-0\\), we have:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
kr \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ c)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
This equivalence says the same thing as our earlier one; however, instead of being in terms
|
|
of degrees, it's in terms of the number of turns \\(c\\) and the turns-per-cycle \\(r\\).
|
|
Now, recall once again that the smallest number of steps \\(k>0\\) for which this equivalence holds is
|
|
\\(k = c/\\text{gcd}(c,r)\\).
|
|
|
|
We're close now: we have a sequence of \\(k\\) steps that will lead us back to the beginning.
|
|
What's left is to show that these \\(k\\) steps are evenly distributed throughout our circle,
|
|
which is the key property that makes it possible for us to make a polygon out of them (and
|
|
thus end up back where we started).
|
|
|
|
To show this, say that we have a largest common divisor \\(f=\\text{gcd}(c,r)\\), and that \\(c=fe\\) and \\(r=fs\\). We can once again "divide through" by \\(f\\), and
|
|
get:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
ks \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ e)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
Now, we know that \\(\\text{gcd}(e,s)=1\\) ([see this section below](#numbers-divided-by-their-textgcd-have-no-common-factors)), and thus:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
k = e/\text{gcd}(e,s) = e
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
That is, our cycle will repeat after \\(e\\) remainders. But wait, we've only got \\(e\\) possible
|
|
remainders: the numbers \\(0\\) through \\(e-1\\)! Thus, for a cycle to repeat after \\(e\\) remainders,
|
|
all possible remainders must occur. For a concrete example, take \\(e=5\\); our remainders will
|
|
be the set \\(\\{0,1,2,3,4\\}\\). Now, let's "multiply back through"
|
|
by \\(f\\):
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
kfs \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ fe)
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
|
|
We still have \\(e\\) possible remainders, but this time they are multiplied by \\(f\\).
|
|
For example, taking \\(e\\) to once again be equal to \\(5\\), we have the set of possible remainders
|
|
\\(\\{0, f, 2f, 3f, 4f\\}\\). The important bit is that these remainders are all evenly spaced, and
|
|
that space between them is \\(f=\\text{gcd}(c,r)\\).
|
|
|
|
Let's recap: we have confirmed that for \\(c\\) possible turns (4 in our original formulation),
|
|
and \\(r\\) turns at a time, we will always loop after \\(k=c/\\text{gcd}(c,r)\\) steps,
|
|
evenly spaced out at \\(\\text{gcd}(c,r)\\) turns. No specific properties from \\(c\\) or \\(r\\)
|
|
are needed for this to work. Finally, recall from the previous
|
|
section that \\(r\\) is zero (and thus, our pattern breaks down) whenever the divisor \\(d\\) (9 in our original formulation) is itself
|
|
divisible by \\(c\\). And so, __as long as we pick a system with \\(c\\) possible directions
|
|
and divisor \\(d\\), we will always loop back and create a pattern as long as \\(c\\nmid d\\) (\\(c\\)
|
|
does not divide \\(d\\))__.
|
|
|
|
Let's try it out! There's a few pictures below. When reading the captions, keep in mind that the _base_
|
|
is one more than the _divisor_ (we started with numbers in the usual base 10, but divided by 9).
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_1_7_t5.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 1 in base 8 while turning 5 times." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 1 by summing digits in base 8 and turning 72 degrees." >}}
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_3_4_t7.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 3 in base 5 while turning 7 times." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 3 by summing digits in base 5 and turning 51 degrees." >}}
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_3_11_t6.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 3 in base 12 while turning 6 times." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 3 by summing digits in base 12 and turning 60 degrees." >}}
|
|
|
|
{{< figure src="pattern_2_11_t7.svg" caption="Pattern generated by the number 2 in base 12 while turning 7 times." class="tiny" alt="Pattern generated by the number 2 by summing digits in base 12 and turning 51 degrees." >}}
|
|
|
|
### Conclusion
|
|
Today we peeked under the hood of a neat mathematical trick that was shown to me by my headmaster
|
|
over 10 years ago now. Studying what it was that made this trick work led us to play with
|
|
the underlying mathematics some more, and extend the trick to more situations (and prettier
|
|
patterns). I hope you found this as interesting as I did!
|
|
|
|
By the way, the kind of math that we did in this article is most closely categorized as
|
|
_number theory_. Check it out if you're interested!
|
|
|
|
Finally, a huge thank you to Arthur for checking my math, helping me with proofs, and proofreading
|
|
the article.
|
|
|
|
All that remains are some proofs I omitted from the original article since they were taking
|
|
up a lot of space (and were interrupting the flow of the explanation). They are listed below.
|
|
|
|
### Referenced Proofs
|
|
|
|
#### Adding Two Congruences
|
|
__Claim__: If for some numbers \\(a\\), \\(b\\), \\(c\\), \\(d\\), and \\(k\\), we have
|
|
\\(a \\equiv b\\ (\\text{mod}\\ k)\\) and \\(c \\equiv d\\ (\\text{mod}\\ k)\\), then
|
|
it's also true that \\(a+c \\equiv b+d\\ (\\text{mod}\\ k)\\).
|
|
|
|
__Proof__: By definition, we have \\(k|(a-b)\\) and \\(k|(c-d)\\). This, in turn, means
|
|
that for some \\(i\\) and \\(j\\), \\(a-b=ik\\) and \\(c-d=jk\\). Add both sides to get:
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
\begin{aligned}
|
|
& (a-b)+(c-d) = ik+jk \\
|
|
\Rightarrow\ & (a+c)-(b+d) = (i+j)k \\
|
|
\Rightarrow\ & k\ |\left[(a+c)-(b+d)\right]\\
|
|
\Rightarrow\ & a+c \equiv b+d\ (\text{mod}\ k) \\
|
|
\end{aligned}
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
\\(\\blacksquare\\)
|
|
|
|
#### Multiplying Both Sides of a Congruence
|
|
__Claim__: If for some numbers \\(a\\), \\(b\\), \\(n\\) and \\(k\\), we have
|
|
\\(a \\equiv b\\ (\\text{mod}\\ k)\\) then we also have that \\(an \\equiv bn\\ (\\text{mod}\\ k)\\).
|
|
|
|
__Proof__: By definition, we have \\(k|(a-b)\\). Since multiplying \\(a-b\\) but \\(n\\) cannot
|
|
make it _not_ divisible by \\(k\\), we also have \\(k|\\left[n(a-b)\\right]\\). Distributing
|
|
\\(n\\), we have \\(k|(na-nb)\\). By definition, this means \\(na\\equiv nb\\ (\\text{mod}\\ k)\\).
|
|
|
|
\\(\\blacksquare\\)
|
|
|
|
#### Invertible Numbers \\(\\text{mod}\\ d\\) Share no Factors with \\(d\\)
|
|
__Claim__: A number \\(k\\) is only invertible (can be divided by) in \\(\\text{mod}\\ d\\) if \\(k\\)
|
|
and \\(d\\) share no common factors (except 1).
|
|
|
|
__Proof__: Write \\(\\text{gcd}(k,d)\\) for the greatest common factor divisor of \\(k\\) and \\(d\\).
|
|
Another important fact (not proven here, but see something [like this](https://sharmaeklavya2.github.io/theoremdep/nodes/number-theory/gcd/gcd-is-min-lincomb.html)), is that if \\(\\text{gcd}(k,d) = r\\),
|
|
then the smallest possible number that can be made by adding and subtracting \\(k\\)s and \\(d\\)s
|
|
is \\(r\\). That is, for some \\(i\\) and \\(j\\), the smallest possible positive value of \\(ik + jd\\) is \\(r\\).
|
|
|
|
Now, note that \\(d \\equiv 0\\ (\\text{mod}\\ d)\\). Multiplying both sides by \\(j\\), get
|
|
\\(jd\\equiv 0\\ (\\text{mod}\\ d)\\). This, in turn, means that the smallest possible
|
|
value of \\(ik+jd \\equiv ik\\) is \\(r\\). If \\(r\\) is bigger than 1 (i.e., if
|
|
\\(k\\) and \\(d\\) have common factors), then we can't pick \\(i\\) such that \\(ik\\equiv1\\),
|
|
since we know that \\(r>1\\) is the least possible value we can make. There is therefore no
|
|
multiplicative inverse to \\(k\\). Alternatively worded, we cannot divide by \\(k\\).
|
|
|
|
\\(\\blacksquare\\)
|
|
|
|
#### Numbers Divided by Their \\(\\text{gcd}\\) Have No Common Factors
|
|
__Claim__: For any two numbers \\(a\\) and \\(b\\) and their largest common factor \\(f\\),
|
|
if \\(a=fc\\) and \\(b=fd\\), then \\(c\\) and \\(d\\) have no common factors other than 1 (i.e.,
|
|
\\(\\text{gcd}(c,d)=1\\)).
|
|
|
|
__Proof__: Suppose that \\(c\\) and \\(d\\) do have sommon factor, \\(e\\neq1\\). In that case, we have
|
|
\\(c=ei\\) and \\(d=ej\\) for some \\(i\\) and \\(j\\). Then, we have \\(a=fei\\), and \\(b=fej\\).
|
|
From this, it's clear that both \\(a\\) and \\(b\\) are divisible by \\(fe\\). Since \\(e\\)
|
|
is greater than \\(1\\), \\(fe\\) is greater than \\(f\\). But our assumptions state that
|
|
\\(f\\) is the greatest common divisor of \\(a\\) and \\(b\\)! We have arrived at a contradiction.
|
|
|
|
Thus, \\(c\\) and \\(d\\) cannot have a common factor other than 1.
|
|
|
|
\\(\\blacksquare\\)
|
|
|
|
#### Divisors of \\(n\\) and \\(n-1\\).
|
|
__Claim__: For any \\(n\\), \\(\\text{gcd}(n,n-1)=1\\). That is, \\(n\\) and \\(n-1\\) share
|
|
no common divisors.
|
|
|
|
__Proof__: Suppose some number \\(f\\) divides both \\(n\\) and \\(n-1\\).
|
|
In that case, we can write \\(n=af\\), and \\((n-1)=bf\\) for some \\(a\\) and \\(b\\).
|
|
Subtracting one equation from the other:
|
|
|
|
{{< latex >}}
|
|
1 = (a-b)f
|
|
{{< /latex >}}
|
|
But this means that 1 is divisible by \\(f\\)! That's only possible if \\(f=1\\). Thus, the only
|
|
number that divides \\(n\\) and \\(n-1\\) is 1; that's our greatest common factor.
|
|
|
|
\\(\\blacksquare\\)
|