20220512, 23:43  #12 
May 2022
1011_{2} Posts 
Since we have two arguments leading to opposite conclusion, we could argue which is the strongest one of the two.
Now, if I should bet (and I do not ever bet), I would say that charibdis' one should be more solid than my empirical evidence based on the range (2, 10^34] or (2, 10^36]... but let us consider a really random similar sequence (I swear, this is the first one which comes to my mind and the most similar that I know by far) in order to test if a perfect cube can occur in this range: perfect powers in A030299, since the sequence A352329 from the OEIS shares the first 36 terms with A353025 and the first one which is not equal is A352329(37) = 1234608769 <> 14102987536 = A353025(37). Well, we can easily find that there is a perfect cube in A030299 which is pretty close to A352329(37): 8096384512=2008^3, belonging to A030299. Thus, we have that A353025 and A352329 are the same sequence up to 923187456 and then the generating sequence A030299 of A353329 has a perfect cube which is smaller than 1.5*10^10, while the generating sequence A352991 of A353025 hasn't any cube up to 10^36. Just a fact, which doesn't show that the empirical argument is better than the others, but IMHO it says something at the end. Last fiddled with by marcokrt on 20220512 at 23:47 
20220512, 23:46  #13  
Apr 2020
857 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


20220512, 23:55  #14  
Apr 2020
1101011001_{2} Posts 
Quote:


20220513, 00:28  #15  
May 2022
13_{8} Posts 
Quote:
Thank you for this very enjoyable discussion! Absolutely agree about the most reasonable guess on the existence of the cubes... here we are almost on the reverse side of Tao's "almostproof" of Collatz Conjecture, since mine is "probably" false; so, the most interesting part would be to wait for a formal disproof... around the 24th century maybe As a memory of the sequences A352991 and A353025, I'll still call it "Conjecture" untill somebody will formally disprove it, even if now we know that it wouldn't probably hold up to very large numbers as 10^80 or so, since it needs that some kind of unknown (heavy and general) constraint occurs along the way. 

20220514, 13:28  #16 
Feb 2017
Nowhere
2×2,999 Posts 
If I understand the problem correctly, you could (in theory) form your "permuted" integers as follows:
If the resulting integer is to be a cube, it has to be congruent to 0, 1 or 8 (mod 9). However, any concatenation of the integers 1 to n is congruent to the sum of the integers 1 to n, or n(n+1)/2 (mod 9). This gives the requirement that n be congruent to 0, 1, 4, 7, or 8 (mod 9). (No number n(n+1)/2 is congruent to 8 (mod 9).) This is of course only a "constant factor" thing. I find the argument persuasive that, when n is "large enough" (and the possibility of cubes is not ruled out by congruences etc) then there will very likely be cubes among the "concatenated permuted" integers 1 to n. I find the argument similarly persuasive for higher powers. I'd call the question an "open question" rather than a "Conjecture." It's a numerical curiosity, but AFAIK does not have any theoretical significance. 
20220514, 16:52  #17  
May 2022
11 Posts 
Quote:
BTW, we still have a more interesting question to answer: "Is Kashihara's Conjecture true according to the same probabilistic argument?". Here is the probabilistical upper bound which I have found for the existence of a perfect power belonging to A001292 (Kashihara's Conjecture says that no term of A001292 which is above 1 can be a perferct power); knowing that the smallest counterexample have necessarily to be above 10^1235 we have: 2*(sum(k=2, infinity)(sum(j=308, infinity)((((10^((j*4+3)/k))  10^((j*4+2)/k))/(9*10^(j*4+2)))*(j*4+3)))), since 308*4+3=1235 (we need to add at least 4 digits to go from A001292(n) to A001292(n+j*4+3)), while I am not sure about the *2 factor which is just an upper bound that I've added in order to take into account the increased chance that the set of the circular permutations of 1_2_3_4_..._447_448 contains any perfect power (i.e., digital root(123...447448)=1, so that its chance should be 9/5 times higher than the expected perfect square ratio in [10^1235, 10^12361]). Now, if the given probabilistic bound holds/is correct, we have that 2*(sum(k=2, infinity)(sum(j=308, infinity)((((10^((j*4+3)/k))  10^((j*4+2)/k))/(9*10^(j*4+2)))*(j*4+3)))) is roughly (2/9)*(sum(j=308, infinity)((((10^((j*4+3)/2))  10^((j*4+2)/2)/(10^(j*4+2)))*(j*4+3)))) < 10^(1000000000) and this would make Kashihara's conjecture 99.9999...% true, even if it is still waiting for a formal proof. My concern is about the sequences A001292 and A352991: Let A001292 or A352991 be given and assume that we select the string 123...m such that 123...m==1(mod 9). Is there a more accurate way to estimate the provided multiplicative factor for any given integer value of the exponent (i.e., charybdis wrote that it would be 6 if we take into account the permutations of 1_2_3_..._42_43 following the A232991 permutation rule, but I cannot understand how this value can be determined, since there are 3 out of 9 congruence classes (modulo 9) such that the digital root of 123...m is 1)? Thanks in advance to everybody! Last fiddled with by marcokrt on 20220514 at 17:38 

20220519, 16:46  #18 
May 2022
11 Posts 
Just to say that the link in the opening post of the present thread is now unavailable, since the current version of the preprint can be read here: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30313.77921/3
Basically, the last remark synthesize the probabilstic argument and extends it to Kashihara's conjecture too... so, after having checked every term up to 10^1235, we are persuaded that it would be almost 100% true under the discussed assumptions, but we still cannot prove it. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Idiotic Proof of the Twin primes Conjecture and Goldbach's conjecture  Hugo1177  Miscellaneous Math  1  20210113 22:15 
Can we prove Beal conjecture assuming ABC conjecture?  didgogns  Miscellaneous Math  1  20200805 06:51 
2^x using powers of e?  nibble4bits  Math  31  20071211 12:56 
Powers, and more powers  Numbers  Puzzles  3  20050713 04:42 