Nice post, but I would be amazed if anyone can prove this!!

There are actually some numbers that are thought never to resolve to a palindrome in this way - 196 is the smallest example. These numbers are called "Lychrel numbers". However, no one has ever proven that they exist, simply no one has managed to prove that they don't.

For example, 196 has been processed through supercomputers, but even when the resultant number is over 300 million digits long, it still isn't a palindrome.

Neida, I am not a Math major, the last time I read Math was almost 17/18 years ago. My knowledge rotates mostly around common sense.

I looked up what "Lychrel numbers" were and it showed up on Wikipedia. With respect to 196, they seem to stick with the defenition of how to rotate numbers and get palindromes, but with the rest they dont seem to. Can you explain why? (As i said, i am not a math major)

A Lychrel number is a natural number which cannot form a palindrome through the iterative process of repeatedly reversing its base 10 digits and adding the resulting numbers.

Example:

# 56 becomes palindromic after one iteration: 56+65 = 121.# 57 becomes palindromic after two iterations: 57+75 = 132, 132+231 = 363.# 59 is not a Lychrel number since it becomes a palindrome after 3 iterations: 59+95 = 154, 154+451 = 605, 605+506 = 1111

Now their Example for 196:

196, 295, 394, 493, 592, 689, 691, 788, 790, 879, 887, 978, 986, 1495, 1497, 1585, 1587, 1675, 1677, 1765, 1767, 1855, 1857, 1945, 1947, 1997

Should it not go like this instead?

196 887 1675 7436....

I know it amounts to the same, but not having studied Abstract Math, I do not understand this. please explain or point to a good source to read up on this.

Thanks. (PM me if u need my email address so we can take this offline. Thanks)