# Can consecutive numbers form a palindrome?

Consider a number formed by concatenating all the natural numbers from $1$ to $n$, for some $n>1$.

(E.g. with $n=13$ this number would be $12345678910111213$.)

## Is it possible for such a number to be a palindrome?

Please provide either an example or a proof of impossibility.

I found this puzzle in the 1996 All-Russian Mathematical Olympiad.

• Well, I know of one example... Sep 15, 2016 at 0:01
• @A.Mirabeau Edited to exclude the trivial case :-) Sep 15, 2016 at 0:02
• Hm, this puzzle seems familiar... :P
– Deusovi
Sep 15, 2016 at 0:11
• Note that a palindromic concatenation of numbers is not necessarily impossible in all bases; for instance, in binary, n = 3 quite happily produces the palindrome 0b11011. Sep 15, 2016 at 0:20
• Have a look at math.stackexchange.com/questions/266124 Sep 15, 2016 at 9:58

(I'm sure I saw almost exactly this question somewhere in the last week or thereabouts. Maybe my brain's playing tricks. I don't think I read the 1996 All-Russian Mathematical Olympiad recently. Perhaps there was another question about concatenated consecutive numbers.)

it is not possible.

Why?

Suppose $n$ has $k$ digits. By inspection $k>1$. Let $m$ consist of the last $k-1$ digits of $n$; then the end of our monstrous number looks like $k-1$ 9s, then the first digit of $n$, then $k-1$ 0s, then another $km$ digits. Therefore its start looks like the reverse of that: $km$ digits, then $k-1$ 0s, then the first digit of $n$, then $k-1$ 9s.

But

this can't happen. That string of $k-1$ zeros after the first $km$ digits can't include the first digit of any of the constituent numbers making up the monstrous number, so they are in fact the final $k-1$ digits of a $k$-digit number. But then they cannot possibly be followed by a single digit and then $k-1$ 9s; rather, they must be followed by a single digit, $k-2$ 0s, and a single 1. Contradiction.

• Sniped! Was working on it this whole time! Sep 15, 2016 at 0:13
• Sorry! I think I happened to see it very soon after it was posted. Sep 15, 2016 at 0:14
• Out of curiosity (I know this wasn't part of the question), for which bases other than 10 would this proof work? @A.Mirabeau noticed that palindromic concatentaion is possible in binary, for example; is it possible in ternary or any higher bases? Sep 15, 2016 at 0:24
• I think it works in any base higher than binary. Sep 15, 2016 at 0:38
• The last three digits have to be $321$, not what you say. The approach is good. The largest block of zeros cannot be mirrored earlier Sep 15, 2016 at 3:33

I have checked your question, and you do not say it must be in base 10. Maybe my assumtion is wrong.

Yes it always happen in base 1
1,2 base 10 = 1,11 base 1
Concatenate it will become 111

• OK, you found an unintended loophole :-) Base 10 was supposed to be an unspoken assumption, but I have to admit this is a kinda-sorta valid answer. Sep 15, 2016 at 12:50

No, except for maybe a few small base examples, e.g. $b=2,n=3:\;11011_2$
Consider the final integer in such a number. Let's assume $b=10$. Let's say it is $4131211101987654321$. The number that precedes this is $4131211101987654320$, which ends in a $20$ making continuity impossible as the theoretical last number would have to start with a number needing a $0$, then a $2$, then a $3$, and so on. The next number would have to end in a number needing a $19$, but the most significant digits of the number won't have changed. For an example, the last few digits are now $41312111019876543204131211101987654321$.
• "making continuity impossible as the next number would have to start with a 0" - I don't understand this bit. What if the final integer $n$ is something like 1987654321? Then $n-1$ ending in a $0$ is perfectly valid from the point of view of palindromicity. (Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean?) Sep 15, 2016 at 13:06