No, it's not meant to be read as decimal digits there. It's mean to be "numeral representing the quantity 72 in base 166" (the 166 in parentheses after the line is the base). It's a single character, the way hexadecimal A-F represent the quantities 10-15 as single numerals.
So for instance, FF is a palindrome even though 1515 would not be (as well as being a completely different number in the decimal representation).
No, it's not meant to be read as decimal digits there. It's mean to be "numeral representing the qua
If I counted unary, every number would immediately be palindromic in base 1. :^y I might as well consider single digit numbers as palindromic and use base ∞ but that is cheating.
If I counted unary, every number would immediately be palindromic in base 1. :^y I might as well con
I guess then the interesting question is, since every* N is palindromic in base N-1 (and represented in that base as "11"), which numbers N are palindromes for at least one base k where 1 < k < N-1? Or for that matter, how MANY of those bases create palindromic representations for a given N? (That way you can have that number of representations possibly be zero and count from there, or just include base N-1 and know the minimum will be 1.)
*for integer N > 2 of course
That's fair! XD I guess then the interesting question is, since every* N is palindromic in base N-1
Every number in its own base is represented by the sequence "10", so that represents 10 in base 10, 2 in base 2, 16 in base 16, etc. The sequence "11" is palindromic, and regardless of base is always 1 unit above the sequence "10". So any number N+1 is represented as "11" in base N. Ergo, any number (greater than 1) has at least the "11" palindromic representation.
Every number in its own base is represented by the sequence "10", so that represents 10 in base 10,
