Expanding Factors












2












$begingroup$


So I recently thought of something. What if you take an integer (like 17 in this case), and find the set of numbers that add together in the closest form, of length 2, but increasing each level. So you would divide 17 into 8 and 9. But then those two numbers would be divided 3 times, producing 2, 3, 3 and 3, 3, 3 respectively. You go any number of levels until the resulting numbers are 0 or 1. Then you count the number of levels. This creates a sort of magnitude of the number. In this case, that magnitude is 3, because it required 3 levels to reach 1's and 0's.
enter image description here



Now the question is, is there any mathematical way of doing this? Any formula that could produce the magnitude of an integer?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Rigidity is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Probably more suited for math.se.
    $endgroup$
    – Zimonze
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Can $17$ be reduced to any two numbers e.g. $6$ and $11$?
    $endgroup$
    – athin
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Inverse factorial, rounded down
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Actually rounded up and minus 1
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @athin It says 'that add together in the closest form'. Bit obscure, but I think it means the set of numbers on the lower level can differ by at most 1.
    $endgroup$
    – ZanyG
    1 hour ago
















2












$begingroup$


So I recently thought of something. What if you take an integer (like 17 in this case), and find the set of numbers that add together in the closest form, of length 2, but increasing each level. So you would divide 17 into 8 and 9. But then those two numbers would be divided 3 times, producing 2, 3, 3 and 3, 3, 3 respectively. You go any number of levels until the resulting numbers are 0 or 1. Then you count the number of levels. This creates a sort of magnitude of the number. In this case, that magnitude is 3, because it required 3 levels to reach 1's and 0's.
enter image description here



Now the question is, is there any mathematical way of doing this? Any formula that could produce the magnitude of an integer?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Rigidity is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Probably more suited for math.se.
    $endgroup$
    – Zimonze
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Can $17$ be reduced to any two numbers e.g. $6$ and $11$?
    $endgroup$
    – athin
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Inverse factorial, rounded down
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Actually rounded up and minus 1
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @athin It says 'that add together in the closest form'. Bit obscure, but I think it means the set of numbers on the lower level can differ by at most 1.
    $endgroup$
    – ZanyG
    1 hour ago














2












2








2


1



$begingroup$


So I recently thought of something. What if you take an integer (like 17 in this case), and find the set of numbers that add together in the closest form, of length 2, but increasing each level. So you would divide 17 into 8 and 9. But then those two numbers would be divided 3 times, producing 2, 3, 3 and 3, 3, 3 respectively. You go any number of levels until the resulting numbers are 0 or 1. Then you count the number of levels. This creates a sort of magnitude of the number. In this case, that magnitude is 3, because it required 3 levels to reach 1's and 0's.
enter image description here



Now the question is, is there any mathematical way of doing this? Any formula that could produce the magnitude of an integer?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Rigidity is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




So I recently thought of something. What if you take an integer (like 17 in this case), and find the set of numbers that add together in the closest form, of length 2, but increasing each level. So you would divide 17 into 8 and 9. But then those two numbers would be divided 3 times, producing 2, 3, 3 and 3, 3, 3 respectively. You go any number of levels until the resulting numbers are 0 or 1. Then you count the number of levels. This creates a sort of magnitude of the number. In this case, that magnitude is 3, because it required 3 levels to reach 1's and 0's.
enter image description here



Now the question is, is there any mathematical way of doing this? Any formula that could produce the magnitude of an integer?







mathematics






share|improve this question







New contributor




Rigidity is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Rigidity is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Rigidity is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









RigidityRigidity

483




483




New contributor




Rigidity is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Rigidity is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Rigidity is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Probably more suited for math.se.
    $endgroup$
    – Zimonze
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Can $17$ be reduced to any two numbers e.g. $6$ and $11$?
    $endgroup$
    – athin
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Inverse factorial, rounded down
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Actually rounded up and minus 1
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @athin It says 'that add together in the closest form'. Bit obscure, but I think it means the set of numbers on the lower level can differ by at most 1.
    $endgroup$
    – ZanyG
    1 hour ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Probably more suited for math.se.
    $endgroup$
    – Zimonze
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Can $17$ be reduced to any two numbers e.g. $6$ and $11$?
    $endgroup$
    – athin
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Inverse factorial, rounded down
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Actually rounded up and minus 1
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @athin It says 'that add together in the closest form'. Bit obscure, but I think it means the set of numbers on the lower level can differ by at most 1.
    $endgroup$
    – ZanyG
    1 hour ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Probably more suited for math.se.
$endgroup$
– Zimonze
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Probably more suited for math.se.
$endgroup$
– Zimonze
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
Can $17$ be reduced to any two numbers e.g. $6$ and $11$?
$endgroup$
– athin
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Can $17$ be reduced to any two numbers e.g. $6$ and $11$?
$endgroup$
– athin
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
Inverse factorial, rounded down
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Inverse factorial, rounded down
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
Actually rounded up and minus 1
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Actually rounded up and minus 1
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
@athin It says 'that add together in the closest form'. Bit obscure, but I think it means the set of numbers on the lower level can differ by at most 1.
$endgroup$
– ZanyG
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
@athin It says 'that add together in the closest form'. Bit obscure, but I think it means the set of numbers on the lower level can differ by at most 1.
$endgroup$
– ZanyG
1 hour ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

As Dr Xorile noted in the comments, all numbers, $k$, which are of magnitude $N$ satisfy




$N! <k leq (N+1)!$




Reasoning




Consider the largest number represented by a given magnitude $N$.

For this number, the bottom layer would consist entirely of groups of $N+1$ $1$s. The number of groups in this bottom layer is just $N!$ (since the $n$th layer has $n$ times more factors than the $(n-1)$th layer) and the sum of the numbers in the bottom layer is equal to the original number.

Hence, this largest number of magnitude $N$ is $k = (N+1)N! = (N+1)!$

Increasing this number by $1$ guarantees that we are forced to have at least one $2$ in the $(N+1)$th layer and so the magnitude must increase by $1$.







share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    SPOILER ALERT



    I have no idea how to put code in spoiler notation





    Well, I put together a little java program:



    public class NumberMagnitude {

    public static void main(String args) {
    int value = 17;
    int k = value;
    int magnitude = 2;
    while(true) {
    k=(k/magnitude);
    (k<=1) { break; }
    magnitude++;
    }
    System.out.println("The magnitude of " + k + " equals " + magnitude);
    }

    }


    I'm not sure if this is exactly what you where looking for when you asked for a formula, but I figured it couldn't hurt.



    You can modify the variable named "value" to test a different number; you could also create a fancier application that asks the user for input or used GUI, but I didn't have time for that.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "559"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Rigidity is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f79739%2fexpanding-factors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      2












      $begingroup$

      As Dr Xorile noted in the comments, all numbers, $k$, which are of magnitude $N$ satisfy




      $N! <k leq (N+1)!$




      Reasoning




      Consider the largest number represented by a given magnitude $N$.

      For this number, the bottom layer would consist entirely of groups of $N+1$ $1$s. The number of groups in this bottom layer is just $N!$ (since the $n$th layer has $n$ times more factors than the $(n-1)$th layer) and the sum of the numbers in the bottom layer is equal to the original number.

      Hence, this largest number of magnitude $N$ is $k = (N+1)N! = (N+1)!$

      Increasing this number by $1$ guarantees that we are forced to have at least one $2$ in the $(N+1)$th layer and so the magnitude must increase by $1$.







      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        2












        $begingroup$

        As Dr Xorile noted in the comments, all numbers, $k$, which are of magnitude $N$ satisfy




        $N! <k leq (N+1)!$




        Reasoning




        Consider the largest number represented by a given magnitude $N$.

        For this number, the bottom layer would consist entirely of groups of $N+1$ $1$s. The number of groups in this bottom layer is just $N!$ (since the $n$th layer has $n$ times more factors than the $(n-1)$th layer) and the sum of the numbers in the bottom layer is equal to the original number.

        Hence, this largest number of magnitude $N$ is $k = (N+1)N! = (N+1)!$

        Increasing this number by $1$ guarantees that we are forced to have at least one $2$ in the $(N+1)$th layer and so the magnitude must increase by $1$.







        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          As Dr Xorile noted in the comments, all numbers, $k$, which are of magnitude $N$ satisfy




          $N! <k leq (N+1)!$




          Reasoning




          Consider the largest number represented by a given magnitude $N$.

          For this number, the bottom layer would consist entirely of groups of $N+1$ $1$s. The number of groups in this bottom layer is just $N!$ (since the $n$th layer has $n$ times more factors than the $(n-1)$th layer) and the sum of the numbers in the bottom layer is equal to the original number.

          Hence, this largest number of magnitude $N$ is $k = (N+1)N! = (N+1)!$

          Increasing this number by $1$ guarantees that we are forced to have at least one $2$ in the $(N+1)$th layer and so the magnitude must increase by $1$.







          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          As Dr Xorile noted in the comments, all numbers, $k$, which are of magnitude $N$ satisfy




          $N! <k leq (N+1)!$




          Reasoning




          Consider the largest number represented by a given magnitude $N$.

          For this number, the bottom layer would consist entirely of groups of $N+1$ $1$s. The number of groups in this bottom layer is just $N!$ (since the $n$th layer has $n$ times more factors than the $(n-1)$th layer) and the sum of the numbers in the bottom layer is equal to the original number.

          Hence, this largest number of magnitude $N$ is $k = (N+1)N! = (N+1)!$

          Increasing this number by $1$ guarantees that we are forced to have at least one $2$ in the $(N+1)$th layer and so the magnitude must increase by $1$.








          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 hours ago









          hexominohexomino

          40.8k3122191




          40.8k3122191























              0












              $begingroup$

              SPOILER ALERT



              I have no idea how to put code in spoiler notation





              Well, I put together a little java program:



              public class NumberMagnitude {

              public static void main(String args) {
              int value = 17;
              int k = value;
              int magnitude = 2;
              while(true) {
              k=(k/magnitude);
              (k<=1) { break; }
              magnitude++;
              }
              System.out.println("The magnitude of " + k + " equals " + magnitude);
              }

              }


              I'm not sure if this is exactly what you where looking for when you asked for a formula, but I figured it couldn't hurt.



              You can modify the variable named "value" to test a different number; you could also create a fancier application that asks the user for input or used GUI, but I didn't have time for that.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                SPOILER ALERT



                I have no idea how to put code in spoiler notation





                Well, I put together a little java program:



                public class NumberMagnitude {

                public static void main(String args) {
                int value = 17;
                int k = value;
                int magnitude = 2;
                while(true) {
                k=(k/magnitude);
                (k<=1) { break; }
                magnitude++;
                }
                System.out.println("The magnitude of " + k + " equals " + magnitude);
                }

                }


                I'm not sure if this is exactly what you where looking for when you asked for a formula, but I figured it couldn't hurt.



                You can modify the variable named "value" to test a different number; you could also create a fancier application that asks the user for input or used GUI, but I didn't have time for that.






                share|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  SPOILER ALERT



                  I have no idea how to put code in spoiler notation





                  Well, I put together a little java program:



                  public class NumberMagnitude {

                  public static void main(String args) {
                  int value = 17;
                  int k = value;
                  int magnitude = 2;
                  while(true) {
                  k=(k/magnitude);
                  (k<=1) { break; }
                  magnitude++;
                  }
                  System.out.println("The magnitude of " + k + " equals " + magnitude);
                  }

                  }


                  I'm not sure if this is exactly what you where looking for when you asked for a formula, but I figured it couldn't hurt.



                  You can modify the variable named "value" to test a different number; you could also create a fancier application that asks the user for input or used GUI, but I didn't have time for that.






                  share|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  SPOILER ALERT



                  I have no idea how to put code in spoiler notation





                  Well, I put together a little java program:



                  public class NumberMagnitude {

                  public static void main(String args) {
                  int value = 17;
                  int k = value;
                  int magnitude = 2;
                  while(true) {
                  k=(k/magnitude);
                  (k<=1) { break; }
                  magnitude++;
                  }
                  System.out.println("The magnitude of " + k + " equals " + magnitude);
                  }

                  }


                  I'm not sure if this is exactly what you where looking for when you asked for a formula, but I figured it couldn't hurt.



                  You can modify the variable named "value" to test a different number; you could also create a fancier application that asks the user for input or used GUI, but I didn't have time for that.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 42 mins ago

























                  answered 54 mins ago









                  Brandon_JBrandon_J

                  1,635228




                  1,635228






















                      Rigidity is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Rigidity is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Rigidity is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Rigidity is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f79739%2fexpanding-factors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                      Alcedinidae

                      Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]