loading...

# Discussion on: Challenge: find 'Kaprekar numbers'

## Replies for: As far as I can see, most (if not all) programs use the strategy to convert the square to a string, pad it with 0 if the length is not even, and sp...

Peter Kim Frank

Dang, that's a great point. I should have made the OP more detailed to clarify that the "split" isn't always right down the middle — even if it happens to work in the [1...999] range.

I definitely didn't think of that possibly while creating the post, or while working on my personal solution.

What does your approach to this look like? Now you've got me curious about how you're going about solving it. NVM, now I see your other comment.

Heiko Dudzus

I think your OP is really ok. I also didn't expect something like this. I think I will inspect some higher Kaprekar number.

But I am looking forward to see how the JS/Java/Clojure/LISP-like solutions get fixed (and I apologize for beeing such a killjoy ;-)

Heiko Dudzus

Is anyone interested in finding another 'strange' Kaprekar number like 5292?

I searched among the first 91 Kaprekar numbers in the range [ 1..108 ]. So far, 5252 is the only one you have to split asymmetrically.

What makes 5292 so special?

Thread
Thomas Much

4879 is 'strange', too:
4879 = 238 + 04641

Thread
Heiko Dudzus

Ok, I see. I've missed it because of the leading zero in the second part.