(In reply to
re: curious by Charlie)
My confusion is probably the result of the temptation to think that the number is 3 times a repunit of length 2013, but it's actually of length 3^2013. If it had been the former, the number itself would still be a multiple of 9 as the digits of 2013 are a multiple of 3, and there's the multiplication of that by 3.
But as the repunit is of length 3^2013 it is certainly itself a multiple of 9 and possibly of higher powers of 3, assuring that the number in question is least a multiple of 27, but it could be a higher power of 3 than that.
|
|
Posted by Charlie
on 2025-05-17 06:05:47 |
re(2): curious
