Definition
The definition of a narcissistic number relies on the decimal representation n = dkdk-1...d1d0 of a natural number n, e.g.
- n = dk·10k-1 + dk-1·10k-2 + ... + d2·10 + d1,
with k digits di satisfying 0 ≤ di ≤ 9. Such a number n is called narcissistic if it satisfies the condition
- n = dkk + dk-1k + ... + d2k + d1k.
For example the 3-digit decimal number 153 is a narcissistic number because 153 = 13 + 53 + 33.
Narcissistic numbers can also be defined with respect to numeral systems with a base b other than b = 10. The base-b representation of a natural number n is defined by
- n = dkbk-1 + dk-1bk-2 + ... + d2b + d1,
where the base-b digits di satisfy the condition 0 ≤ di ≤ b-1. For example the (decimal) number 17 is a narcissistic number with respect to the numeral system with base b = 3. Its three base-3 digits are 122, because 17 = 1·32 + 2·3 + 2, and it satisfies the equation 17 = 13 + 23 + 23.
If the constraint that the power must equal the number of digits is dropped, so that for some m possibly different from k it happens that
- n = dkm + dk-1m + ... + d2m + d1m,
then n is called a perfect digital invariant or PDI. For example, the decimal number 4150 has four decimal digits and is the sum of the fifth powers of its decimal digits
- 4150 = 45 + 15 + 55 + 05,
so it is a perfect digital invariant but not a narcissistic number.
In "A Mathematician's Apology", G. H. Hardy wrote:
- There are just four numbers, after unity, which are the sums of the cubes of their digits:
- .
- .
- These are odd facts, very suitable for puzzle columns and likely to amuse amateurs, but there is nothing in them which appeals to the mathematician.
Read more about this topic: Narcissistic Number
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“Although there is no universal agreement as to a definition of life, its biological manifestations are generally considered to be organization, metabolism, growth, irritability, adaptation, and reproduction.”
—The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, the first sentence of the article on life (based on wording in the First Edition, 1935)
“... we all know the wags definition of a philanthropist: a man whose charity increases directly as the square of the distance.”
—George Eliot [Mary Ann (or Marian)
“Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
—Walter Pater (18391894)