why we do'nt use numbers such as 196 to find a palendromic number?
196 is not palendromic, so why would it help?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palindromic_number for more about such numbers. They can be easily "found".
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palindromic_number for more about such numbers. They can be easily "found".