Talk:Kaprekar's routine

1000
1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.16.19 (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * leads to 0999, 8991, 8082, 8532, 6174 2.25.131.166 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"mathematician" or "recreational mathematician"?
The page for D. R. Kaprekar says he was a "recreational mathematician" and mentions that while he was well-known as such, he worked as a schoolteacher. I wonder then if the lede here should link to "recreational mathematician" (as in his own page) rather than the misleading "mathematician". --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a limit to the number of iterations?
The article for the number 6174 states that, for three digit numbers, there is a limit to the number of iterations it takes to reach 495: 6 iterations is the maximum. However, nothing is stated for the limit to the 4-digit number.

I tried a random number generated by pressing the "ran#" function on my calculator: 3981, and it took seven iterations. I was almost ready to give up, but it finally reached Kaprekar's constant. I am curious if this is atypical, and if there is a limit. The examples given in the Numberphile video all occurred within three or so iterations. Philologick (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a finite number of natural numbers which can be constructed using a fixed, finite, number of digits. So the number of iterations after which the final value is reached must have a maximum. So I assume that your question is: what is the value of this maximum? Interesting question! Bob.v.R (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For the 4-digit number, the maximum (the 'limit') is 8, according to the article. Bob.v.R (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The referenced Mathworld article is inaccurate, the limit for 4-digit numbers is actually 7 iterations. Source: https://imgur.com/gallery/5cSbE (or you can count the maximum depth in the "tree" image on the page). The inaccurate number from that article is also quoted on the page for the number 6174. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.219.130 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Reference to dewiki
The appropriate entry exists in the German Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaprekar-Konstante) but I did not succeed in entering the link. Can someone please tell me how to (or just do it)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolarode (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Base
The base, 10, should be mentioned. I have made a separate improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:B5E3:6702:4C88:669B (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is, you idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:B5E3:6702:4C88:669B (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Usual vs original formulation discrepancy
The text "leading zeros are ... discarded (as in Kaprekar's original formulation)." suggests that discarding is the original formulation, but the next paragraph says "in Kaprekar's original formulation the leading zeros are retained". Stewbasic (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Relation to Phi, Fibonacci
How is this related to 0.618 Gold333 (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)