Mentally calculating 889014113748268 mod 222?

How else would you explain it then?

Either he has memorized a million digits or he can calculate to the power of 200 through some kind of method. It doesn’t matter which one because the feat is so far ahead of others, it is still incredibly impressive.

I find it more likely that Rudiger has some crazy genes and through training got to a level with powers nobody else has reached yet than that he is some kind of a showman. Rudiger gamm has been tested and interviewed multiple times by scientists, mental math experts and memory experts, like Nelson Dellis. I rather trust those memory and calculation experts than your opinion.

The Gamm exponentiation is 99%+ memory.

He stopped competing in mental calculation after 2008.

The 1% which are calculation, are small powers like 4^4 οr 3^6 etc.

But the 99.999% of the TV audiences don’t really understand the difference between memorizing powers and calculating powers.

Nonetheless, to memorize the whole 100^100 expontiation is an incredible feat and comparable to the World Record in memorizing Pi , or even more

4 Likes

After reading some typical myths about mental arithmetic and memory performance here, I actually wanted to write the same thing as Nodas. Gamm never claimed in an interview that he actually calculated powers. I train for about 3 hours every day to improve my Soroban skills. Savants also deal very intensively with their special topic and so it is not at all surprising that such top performances come out.

1 Like

A bit of Excel math :slight_smile: (I might have messed it up, be kind!)

Number of digits to memorize if you want to be able to calculate 0-99 …
… up to the power of 5: 2551 digits
… up to the power of 10: 9035 digits
… up to the power of 12 (which was what he mentioned in the ND video): 12718 digits
… up to the power of 20: 33710 digits
… up to the power of 50: 201316 digits (starting to be a bunch!)
… up to the power of 99: 776977 digits

I might dust off an old palace and memorize up to the fifth power, you never know, could be useful one day :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes

If it is ‘just’ 12K digits, then it perfectly possible. The pi record is more than 70K digits. Even the German Pi memory record is more than that , I think.

I hold the Pi memory record for own country (Greece), but unfortunately, there are no other fellow competitors to push our national competition record, so my record is low and stagnated. I hope in the future , I find the motivation to break my own record.

As for memorizing 2-digit powers (01-99) , I have memorized to the powers of 2 (’ first hundred squares’) , and the powers of 3 ( ‘first hundred cubes’), and this often helps in many mental calculation tasks.

But to extend the memory of 2-digit powers, from the 3rd power until the 12th power (like Gamm), this would require a tremendous amount of effort, improved memory system/ palace and huge PAO database. At least that’s how I see it.

Also, don’t forget that it is not just memorizing these 12.7 K digits, but also their respective associations with 100 x 12 = 1200 total different numbers.

And as you can see, the average result is around 10-11 digits (12.7K total digits over / 1.2K total numbers ), but in stuff like 99^12 =886,384,871,716,129,280,658,801 it can be much more , like 21 digits in this maximum case.

To make matters easier, there a lot of hidden tricks and repeating endings in exponentiation, so if you find some patterns, then it is easier to memorise into several categories.
These results of exponential powers, are not just random numbers. Often they show several patterns, and many of them are still a mystery to humans. If you are further interested , check the work of Willem Bouman on modular arithmetic, primes, exponents and factorization.

3 Likes

I also once memorized excessive powers of double-digit numbers. But after I started the Soroban training I noticed how fast it was to divide. Then I only needed to know the two-digit numbers up to 99^9, 99^12, 99^15 and so on. I can easily calculate 99^10 from 99^12 ÷ 99^2.
I can just multiply the lower powers up to 99^6 = 99^3 x 99^3.

In order to achieve the 1st kyu I needed very intensive 6-9 months with Soroban. At that time I still had a lot more time to practice 6-8 hours every day. Sometimes until 3 a.m. Over the years you develop more and more safety and the transfer to the mental image is rather fluid. The only important thing is that you practice regularly and keep increasing your level. I only practice Flash Anzan to maintain a certain level. To get even faster I would have to neglect other disciplines like the square roots (my favorite category). My big goal is to beat the world record for six and ten-digit numbers (memory software).

4 Likes

Dear Kinma. sorry i didnt understand what method/methods u used after 1511,
would you tell a few books i may read them to get most of this method؟(It does not matter if the books involve basics) let me get to depth,maybe next week im going to share the result with you.

The methods I use do not come from books. In general I make them myself.
In order to find the modulo 222, you divide by 222 and keep only the remainder.
You are not interested in the result of the division.

The method I use is to make the number smaller by subtracting factors of 222. We need to find: 889,014,113,748,268 mod 222.

We make 889,014,113,748,268 smaller by subtracting 888,000,000,000,000, which of course is a factor of 222.
889,014,113,748,268 - 888,000,000,000,000 = 1,014,113,748,268.

In my mind I don’t keep track of all the zero’s of course. In the first step I only see 889. At the end, I only see: 1014. So I subtract 888 from 1014. Here Is how I do this. From 888 to 900 is 12. Then another 100 then another 14. 126 in total. (Had I realized Mayarra her insight, I would have subtracted 999 but at the time I didn’t.)

In my mind I now take the most left ‘1’ from 113,748,268 and work with 1261. Subtract 1,110 from 1,261 to get a remainder of 151.
I now take the most left ‘1’ from 13,748,268 and work with 1,511. Subtract 1,110 from 1511 to get a remainder of 401.

Then I subtracted 222 from 401, etc. (Again, had I realized Mayarra her insight, I would have subtracted 333 but at the time I didn’t.)

I hope that helps. If not, let me know.

3 Likes

Read “The Blank Slate” by Steven Pinker and you’ll find out the truth.
400 year old philosophy v/s modern neuroscience, genetics and psychology? Not even a question.

Yeah sure, let me know if you can find some baby that can speak and calculate out of the womb.

But it ain’t gonna happen, so your argument is wrong.

1 Like

Alright, then begin the task to search the baby.:joy::joy::joy:

I don’t see why you can’t compete either.
The way I look at an innate ability would be like the rainman movie where ‘rainman’ instantly gives the number of toothpicks spilled on the floor. This would mean he didn’t count them in the conventional sense. And, importantly he just does these things naturally…he doesn’t know how he does it.

This would be similar to walking for the average person. They don’t know how they do it, the just do it when they want to.

However, you said:

But, you also said in a later post:

The difference to me from the innate view as I depicted above and your mental calculation is that you do know how you do it. And you do use a method: regular multiplication as taught in elementary school.

I’m not questioning that you have innate abilities which may result in greater speed than ordinary people when doing ‘standard multiplication’ in their head lets say. But since you know how you do it, and actually use the standard method to do the multiplication, then you are using methods (perhaps aided by innate ability), but it appears you do not do multiplication wholly innate similar to my characterization of innate above.

The upshot of what I’m suggesting is that I see no conflict to you entering competition (if you want to) and changing methods from what you use now to more computationally efficient methods for mental calculation. I don’t think it would diminish your natural ability or other’s appreciation of that ability.

1 Like

I never claimed that. What I meant was that the mind is not a blank state and some are bound to be better at mental calculation right from the birth - it comes naturally to them and they will require less practice than others to achieve the same level.

1 Like

Are you sure about that? You said in your initial post…

What truth are you referring to exactly? That book is too soft science to make that argument. It’s okay though, because elsewhere you said…

…so welcome to the millennia old nature versus nurture debate. :wink:

You should really read up on the topic before making such statements, because you can take the whole thing back another 2,000 years to Aristotle… and then we could argue, “millennia old debate v/s a single book. Not even a question.

Well, your so-called “blank slate” is really an “erased wax tablet” if you want a better translation of the Latin “tabula rasa” and might also better explain the idea. In fact I just discussed with @thinkaboutthebible the very same image…

…now, I’m not gonna argue that the Ancient Romans/Greeks made a case for neuroplasticity with that analogy but we’re not talking “somethingness from nothingness” here. You should understand the blank slate (the wax tables with Stylo) like a computer with a CPU, ALU ( arithmetic logic unit), etc. that let’s you write a program that you can then execute.

There are various reasons why you could move “counting” into the nature category, as you’ll find some animals able of doing so without really being taught by their environment. Same goes for the “ability to speak” but not language itself.

How about you google “nature versus nurture mathematics” and see where that gets you in terms “the truth” because you’ll find as much research supporting one as you’ll find supporting the other.

Personal opinion is with @Nodas as far as mental math… not the ability to count (that’s just your brain’s ALU)… most likely neither in your DNA from birth nor epigenetics. Anyways, I hope you have some reading material now that let’s you leave a more qualified comment the next time around.

1 Like

That we are not blank slates at the time of birth.

Have you even read it?

make that “a well read high school student”.

Thank you, I already feel as welcome to a “millenia old nature versus nurture debate” as anyone else alive today could.

A single book, yes, but the result of multitudes of studies and research based on modern, advanced scientific methods.

Exactly my point - becoming wonderfully good at something through practice (nurturing) is easier if your genes (nature) favored it.


I see now I did not make my stance clear in my first post. I am a firm believer in hardwork, believe that neuroplasticity is a wonderful thing and that the human mind is capable of achieving anything that it is motivated enough to. However, good genes never hurt and help the process of achieving mastery and the claim that the human mind is an outright blank slate is not correct.

Did you read either of these two?

  • Lock’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”
  • Aristotle’s “De anima”

…because all I hear is:

Obviously, literally it is not… figuratively, I’m not sure you got Locke’s analogy and thus what @Nodas was alluding to; especially, in the context of mental math.

1 Like

Здравейте!Тъкмо днес Калоян решава тези задачи Направи около 46 за 10 мин.Не знаех ,че има право да избира ,т.е мислех ,че трябва подред.За всички ли задачи на Световното ли се отнася ?И още нещо в този ред на мисли :На календарни дати има право на 1 грешка само или се приспадат,(това не го разбрах от регламента)

While revisiting this old thread, I realized there’s an even better/quicker way to get the mod 222!

TL;DR

222 = 2\times 3\times 37. To find N \bmod 37, split N into 3-digit blocks, add them, and if the result is still large, repeat.

Example:
889{,}014{,}113{,}748{,}268 \Rightarrow 889+014+113+748+268=2{,}032 \Rightarrow 2+32=34

So:
N \equiv 34 \pmod{37}


Full Explanation

We modularize (can I say it this way?) this number: 889014113748268

Split it into blocks of three digits:

889 | 014 | 113 | 748 | 268

Now add them:
\Rightarrow 889+014+113+748+268=2{,}032

We can repeat the same process once more, since 2{,}032 is still large:
2{,}032 \Rightarrow 2+032=2+32=34

(After this there is a quick mod-2 and mod-3 test. See below.)

Done.


Why this works

We start by noting that
222 = 2\times3\times37

So a number is divisible by 222 if it’s divisible by 2, 3, and 37 simultaneously.


Step 1. Focus on \text{mod }37

Because 1000 \equiv 1 \pmod{37}, we can split the number into 3-digit chunks and simply add them.
That’s a very compact, mathematical way of explaining this. Let’s unpack it.
In plain English, 37\times27=999.

Let’s write a number, say 222{,}032, as 222\times1000 + 032

If we call a=222 and b=032, then this becomes 1000a+b

The remainder modulo 37 of a number doesn’t change if we subtract any multiple of 37.
Since 999=27\times37, this is a multiple of 37.
If 999 is a multiple of 37, then so is 999a.

Subtracting 999a gives:
1000a-999a+b=a+b

Let’s make the number larger. For any 7–9-digit number, after splitting into groups of three [a, b, c], we can write it as 1{,}000{,}000a + 1{,}000b + c \Rightarrow 1{,}000(1{,}000a + b) + c

Let’s call x=1000a+b, then we get:
1000x+c

Subtract 999x (a multiple of 37):
1000x-999x+c = x+c

Substituting back x=1000a+b gives:
1000a+b+c

Subtract 999a, and we get:
a+b+c

So in short: any number written in 3-digit groups modulo 37 is equivalent to simply adding the groups together.

We can repeat the same process once more (since 2032 is still large):
2032 \Rightarrow 2+032=2+32=34

Thus:
889014113748268 \equiv 34 \pmod{37}


Step 2. Mods 2 and 3

Before we continue, let’s briefly recap.
We said that a number is divisible by 222 if and only if it’s divisible by 37, 2, and 3 at the same time.
We already handled \bmod 37; now let’s look at \bmod 2 and \bmod 3.

A number that leaves the same remainder as the original must satisfy all three conditions.
Because 222 = 2\times3\times37, the remainder must be:

  • even (to satisfy divisibility by 2), and
  • behave the same way as the original number with respect to 3.

Let’s check what the original number does mod 3.
When we add its digits, we get
8+8+9+0+1+4+1+1+3+7+4+8+2+6+8 = 70.
Since 70 \equiv 1 \pmod{3}, the original number leaves a remainder 1 when divided by 3.

So any smaller equivalent remainder r must also satisfy r \equiv 1 \pmod{3}.
That’s why our target remainder r must satisfy both r \equiv 0 \pmod{2} and r \equiv 1 \pmod{3}.

Mod 2: the last digit is 8 (even), so N \equiv 0 \pmod{2}.

Mod 3: as shown above, 70 \equiv 1 \pmod{3}, so N \equiv 1 \pmod{3}.


Step 3. Combine the results

We now seek a remainder r such that:

r \equiv 0 \pmod{2}
r \equiv 1 \pmod{3}
r \equiv 34 \pmod{37}

Try r=34:
34\equiv0\pmod{2}
34\equiv1\pmod{3}
34\equiv34\pmod{37}

All conditions are satisfied.

Therefore:
889014113748268 \bmod 222 = 34


:abacus: In short

Reduce the number mod 37 by adding 3-digit groups, then verify

  • mod 2 = 0 (even number)
  • mod 3 = 1 (digit-sum leaves 1)

The final remainder that fits all three is 34.

2 Likes