Browse Groups

• ## FW: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid

(6)
• NextPrevious
• ... From: merk7777777@yahoo.com To: maximilian.hasler@gmail.com Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:36 PM EDT Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid
Aug 10, 2011 1 of 6
View Source
----Forwarded Message----
From: merk7777777@...
To: maximilian.hasler@...
Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:36 PM EDT
Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid

Correction placed in final sentence here.
Three 333-digit consecutive primes are apt to exist such that their concatenation in some order is greatest of all non-titanic concatenations (Perhaps the specifics are interesting, but I didn't pursue it). Until n=9, then, there are no 999-digit prime concatenations of n consecutive primes other than the four I thought I described in (interesting enough) detail: Five must be 143 digits and the other two are those immediately under 10^142; and the reason I bothered with posting this is that three of these prime concatenations--the largest of them, I THOUGHT, placing all five of the ones with leading digit 1 left to right from largest to smallest, have the larger of the ones with leading digit 9 in initial position and the smaller one in final position. f still unclear, let me know. FWIW, I don't see much interesting in the seven primes involved other than that the second prime exceeding 10^142 does so by 111. In fact, THE FIRST IS ACTUALLY BEFORE
THIS IN THE NUMBER THAT LOOKED INTERESTING TO ME, so I made a misstatement in posting this (Likely I would have thought it still worth a mention, but perhaps not). I can reproduce the numbers if actually wanted.
Jim

On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 11:26 AM EDT Maximilian Hasler wrote:

>Dear Jim,
>
>for most mathematicians it takes quite some time to translate your
>statements to formulae which give them a meaning.
>
>Could you be so kind as to use conventional mathematical language and
>explicit formulae
>
>below some concrete questions.
>
>On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:59 AM, James Merickel <merk7777777@...> wrote:
>> Other than for concatenations of 3 of them,
>
>which three ?
>
>> the largest prime non-titanic concatenation of consecutive primes
>
>can you give it more explicitely ?
>
>> brackets
>
>how can ONE thing bracket something else ?
>AFAIK you need two things to bracket something in-between !?
>
>> the five smallest
>
>could you give them ?
>
>> over 10^142
>
>what does this mean, "over" ?
>
>> in decreasing left-to-right order between the two largest under (also in decreasing order).
>
>the 2 largest under what ? can you give the values ?
>
>>  The next three largest are also concatenations of 7,
>
>what means " concatenations of 7 " ?
>
>> with the only one leading with the smallest
>
>what do you mean ?
>
>> having the second smallest in the 3rd position left-to-right.
>
>please write the chain of inequalities, it would be so much easier to
>visualize and understand.
>
>
>Maximilian
• Explicitly, using the notation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics) , the number I misread slightly is
Aug 10, 2011 1 of 6
View Source
Explicitly, using the notation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics) , the number I misread slightly is
(10^142-519)||(10^142+1563)||(10^142+1083)||(10^142+301)||(10^142+13)||(10^142+111)||(10^142-563)

----Forwarded Message----
From: merk7777777@...
Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:39 PM EDT
Subject: FW: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid

----Forwarded Message----
From: merk7777777@...
To: maximilian.hasler@...
Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:36 PM EDT
Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid

Correction placed in final sentence here.
Three 333-digit consecutive primes are apt to exist such that their concatenation in some order is greatest of all non-titanic concatenations (Perhaps the specifics are interesting, but I didn't pursue it). Until n=9, then, there are no 999-digit prime concatenations of n consecutive primes other than the four I thought I described in (interesting enough) detail: Five must be 143 digits and the other two are those immediately under 10^142; and the reason I bothered with posting this is that three of these prime concatenations--the largest of them, I THOUGHT, placing all five of the ones with leading digit 1 left to right from largest to smallest, have the larger of the ones with leading digit 9 in initial position and the smaller one in final position. f still unclear, let me know. FWIW, I don't see much interesting in the seven primes involved other than that the second prime exceeding 10^142 does so by 111. In fact, THE FIRST IS ACTUALLY BEFORE
THIS IN THE NUMBER THAT LOOKED INTERESTING TO ME, so I made a misstatement in posting this (Likely I would have thought it still worth a mention, but perhaps not). I can reproduce the numbers if actually wanted.
Jim

On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 11:26 AM EDT Maximilian Hasler wrote:

>Dear Jim,
>
>for most mathematicians it takes quite some time to translate your
>statements to formulae which give them a meaning.
>
>Could you be so kind as to use conventional mathematical language and
>explicit formulae
>
>below some concrete questions.
>
>On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:59 AM, James Merickel <merk7777777@...> wrote:
>> Other than for concatenations of 3 of them,
>
>which three ?
>
>> the largest prime non-titanic concatenation of consecutive primes
>
>can you give it more explicitely ?
>
>> brackets
>
>how can ONE thing bracket something else ?
>AFAIK you need two things to bracket something in-between !?
>
>> the five smallest
>
>could you give them ?
>
>> over 10^142
>
>what does this mean, "over" ?
>
>> in decreasing left-to-right order between the two largest under (also in decreasing order).
>
>the 2 largest under what ? can you give the values ?
>
>>  The next three largest are also concatenations of 7,
>
>what means " concatenations of 7 " ?
>
>> with the only one leading with the smallest
>
>what do you mean ?
>
>> having the second smallest in the 3rd position left-to-right.
>
>please write the chain of inequalities, it would be so much easier to
>visualize and understand.
>
>
>Maximilian

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Sorry, link was missing open parenthesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics) Jim ... From: merk7777777@yahoo.com To:
Aug 10, 2011 1 of 6
View Source
Sorry, link was missing open parenthesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics)
Jim

----Forwarded Message----
From: merk7777777@...
Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:55 PM EDT
Subject: FW: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid

Explicitly, using the notation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics) , the number I misread slightly is
(10^142-519)||(10^142+1563)||(10^142+1083)||(10^142+301)||(10^142+13)||(10^142+111)||(10^142-563)

----Forwarded Message----
From: merk7777777@...
Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:39 PM EDT
Subject: FW: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid

----Forwarded Message----
From: merk7777777@...
To: maximilian.hasler@...
Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:36 PM EDT
Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid

Correction placed in final sentence here.
Three 333-digit consecutive primes are apt to exist such that their concatenation in some order is greatest of all non-titanic concatenations (Perhaps the specifics are interesting, but I didn't pursue it). Until n=9, then, there are no 999-digit prime concatenations of n consecutive primes other than the four I thought I described in (interesting enough) detail: Five must be 143 digits and the other two are those immediately under 10^142; and the reason I bothered with posting this is that three of these prime concatenations--the largest of them, I THOUGHT, placing all five of the ones with leading digit 1 left to right from largest to smallest, have the larger of the ones with leading digit 9 in initial position and the smaller one in final position. f still unclear, let me know. FWIW, I don't see much interesting in the seven primes involved other than that the second prime exceeding 10^142 does so by 111. In fact, THE FIRST IS ACTUALLY BEFORE
THIS IN THE NUMBER THAT LOOKED INTERESTING TO ME, so I made a misstatement in posting this (Likely I would have thought it still worth a mention, but perhaps not). I can reproduce the numbers if actually wanted.
Jim

On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 11:26 AM EDT Maximilian Hasler wrote:

>Dear Jim,
>
>for most mathematicians it takes quite some time to translate your
>statements to formulae which give them a meaning.
>
>Could you be so kind as to use conventional mathematical language and
>explicit formulae
>
>below some concrete questions.
>
>On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:59 AM, James Merickel <merk7777777@...> wrote:
>> Other than for concatenations of 3 of them,
>
>which three ?
>
>> the largest prime non-titanic concatenation of consecutive primes
>
>can you give it more explicitely ?
>
>> brackets
>
>how can ONE thing bracket something else ?
>AFAIK you need two things to bracket something in-between !?
>
>> the five smallest
>
>could you give them ?
>
>> over 10^142
>
>what does this mean, "over" ?
>
>> in decreasing left-to-right order between the two largest under (also in decreasing order).
>
>the 2 largest under what ? can you give the values ?
>
>>  The next three largest are also concatenations of 7,
>
>what means " concatenations of 7 " ?
>
>> with the only one leading with the smallest
>
>what do you mean ?
>
>> having the second smallest in the 3rd position left-to-right.
>
>please write the chain of inequalities, it would be so much easier to
>visualize and understand.
>
>
>Maximilian

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Another correction: The sentence claiming there are no 999-digit primes of other lengths than discussed should say with leading digit 9 as well. Jim
Aug 10, 2011 1 of 6
View Source
Another correction: The sentence claiming there are no 999-digit primes of other lengths than discussed should say 'with leading digit 9' as well.
Jim

On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 3:00 PM EDT James Merickel wrote:

>Sorry, link was missing open parenthesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics)
>Jim
>
>----Forwarded Message----
>From: merk7777777@...
>Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:55 PM EDT
>Subject: FW: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid
>
>Explicitly, using the notation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics) , the number I misread slightly is
>(10^142-519)||(10^142+1563)||(10^142+1083)||(10^142+301)||(10^142+13)||(10^142+111)||(10^142-563)
>
>----Forwarded Message----
>From: merk7777777@...
>Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:39 PM EDT
>Subject: FW: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid
>
>
>
>----Forwarded Message----
>From: merk7777777@...
>To: maximilian.hasler@...
>Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:36 PM EDT
>Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid
>
>Correction placed in final sentence here.
>Three 333-digit consecutive primes are apt to exist such that their concatenation in some order is greatest of all non-titanic concatenations (Perhaps the specifics are interesting, but I didn't pursue it). Until n=9, then, there are no 999-digit prime concatenations of n consecutive primes other than the four I thought I described in (interesting enough) detail: Five must be 143 digits and the other two are those immediately under 10^142; and the reason I bothered with posting this is that three of these prime concatenations--the largest of them, I THOUGHT, placing all five of the ones with leading digit 1 left to right from largest to smallest, have the larger of the ones with leading digit 9 in initial position and the smaller one in final position. f still unclear, let me know. FWIW, I don't see much interesting in the seven primes involved other than that the second prime exceeding 10^142 does so by 111. In fact, THE FIRST IS ACTUALLY BEFORE
> THIS IN THE NUMBER THAT LOOKED INTERESTING TO ME, so I made a misstatement in posting this (Likely I would have thought it still worth a mention, but perhaps not). I can reproduce the numbers if actually wanted.
>Jim
>
>On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 11:26 AM EDT Maximilian Hasler wrote:
>
>>Dear Jim,
>>
>>for most mathematicians it takes quite some time to translate your
>>statements to formulae which give them a meaning.
>>
>>Could you be so kind as to use conventional mathematical language and
>>explicit formulae
>>
>>below some concrete questions.
>>
>>On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:59 AM, James Merickel <merk7777777@...> wrote:
>>> Other than for concatenations of 3 of them,
>>
>>which three ?
>>
>>> the largest prime non-titanic concatenation of consecutive primes
>>
>>can you give it more explicitely ?
>>
>>> brackets
>>
>>how can ONE thing bracket something else ?
>>AFAIK you need two things to bracket something in-between !?
>>
>>> the five smallest
>>
>>could you give them ?
>>
>>> over 10^142
>>
>>what does this mean, "over" ?
>>
>>> in decreasing left-to-right order between the two largest under (also in decreasing order).
>>
>>the 2 largest under what ? can you give the values ?
>>
>>>  The next three largest are also concatenations of 7,
>>
>>what means " concatenations of 7 " ?
>>
>>> with the only one leading with the smallest
>>
>>what do you mean ?
>>
>>> having the second smallest in the 3rd position left-to-right.
>>
>>please write the chain of inequalities, it would be so much easier to
>>visualize and understand.
>>
>>
>>Maximilian
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
• Aug 10, 2011 1 of 6
View Source
On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 4:22 PM EDT James Merickel wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics) [cellphone chooses word I intend typing, and assumed parenthesis was typo]
>
>On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 3:07 PM EDT James Merickel wrote:
>
>>Another correction: The sentence claiming there are no 999-digit primes of other lengths than discussed should say 'with leading digit 9' as well.
>>Jim
>>
>>On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 3:00 PM EDT James Merickel wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry, link was missing open parenthesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics)
>>>Jim
>>>
>>>----Forwarded Message----
>>>From: merk7777777@...
>>>Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:55 PM EDT
>>>Subject: FW: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid
>>>
>>>Explicitly, using the notation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics) , the number I misread slightly is
>>>(10^142-519)||(10^142+1563)||(10^142+1083)||(10^142+301)||(10^142+13)||(10^142+111)||(10^142-563)
>>>
>>>----Forwarded Message----
>>>From: merk7777777@...
>>>Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:39 PM EDT
>>>Subject: FW: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----Forwarded Message----
>>>From: merk7777777@...
>>>To: maximilian.hasler@...
>>>Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:36 PM EDT
>>>Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid
>>>
>>>Correction placed in final sentence here.
>>>Three 333-digit consecutive primes are apt to exist such that their concatenation in some order is greatest of all non-titanic concatenations (Perhaps the specifics are interesting, but I didn't pursue it). Until n=9, then, there are no 999-digit prime concatenations of n consecutive primes other than the four I thought I described in (interesting enough) detail: Five must be 143 digits and the other two are those immediately under 10^142; and the reason I bothered with posting this is that three of these prime concatenations--the largest of them, I THOUGHT, placing all five of the ones with leading digit 1 left to right from largest to smallest, have the larger of the ones with leading digit 9 in initial position and the smaller one in final position. f still unclear, let me know. FWIW, I don't see much interesting in the seven primes involved other than that the second prime exceeding 10^142 does so by 111. In fact, THE FIRST IS ACTUALLY BEFORE
>>> THIS IN THE NUMBER THAT LOOKED INTERESTING TO ME, so I made a misstatement in posting this (Likely I would have thought it still worth a mention, but perhaps not). I can reproduce the numbers if actually wanted.
>>>Jim
>>>
>>>On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 11:26 AM EDT Maximilian Hasler wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dear Jim,
>>>>
>>>>for most mathematicians it takes quite some time to translate your
>>>>statements to formulae which give them a meaning.
>>>>
>>>>Could you be so kind as to use conventional mathematical language and
>>>>explicit formulae
>>>>
>>>>below some concrete questions.
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:59 AM, James Merickel <merk7777777@...> wrote:
>>>>> Other than for concatenations of 3 of them,
>>>>
>>>>which three ?
>>>>
>>>>> the largest prime non-titanic concatenation of consecutive primes
>>>>
>>>>can you give it more explicitely ?
>>>>
>>>>> brackets
>>>>
>>>>how can ONE thing bracket something else ?
>>>>AFAIK you need two things to bracket something in-between !?
>>>>
>>>>> the five smallest
>>>>
>>>>could you give them ?
>>>>
>>>>> over 10^142
>>>>
>>>>what does this mean, "over" ?
>>>>
>>>>> in decreasing left-to-right order between the two largest under (also in decreasing order).
>>>>
>>>>the 2 largest under what ? can you give the values ?
>>>>
>>>>>  The next three largest are also concatenations of 7,
>>>>
>>>>what means " concatenations of 7 " ?
>>>>
>>>>> with the only one leading with the smallest
>>>>
>>>>what do you mean ?
>>>>
>>>>> having the second smallest in the 3rd position left-to-right.
>>>>
>>>>please write the chain of inequalities, it would be so much easier to
>>>>visualize and understand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Maximilian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>
>
• You are not, after all, a bot, but afflicted and poleaxed by a non mobile Pollex. I suggest you get a Blackberry, and quickly, before they are banned.
Aug 10, 2011 1 of 6
View Source
You are not, after all, a bot, but afflicted and poleaxed by a non mobile Pollex. I suggest you get a Blackberry, and quickly, before they are banned.

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, James Merickel <merk7777777@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 4:22 PM EDT James Merickel wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics) [cellphone chooses word I intend typing, and assumed parenthesis was typo]
> >
> >On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 3:07 PM EDT James Merickel wrote:
> >
> >>Another correction: The sentence claiming there are no 999-digit primes of other lengths than discussed should say 'with leading digit 9' as well.
> >>Jim
> >>
> >>On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 3:00 PM EDT James Merickel wrote:
> >>
> >>>Sorry, link was missing open parenthesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics)
> >>>Jim
> >>>
> >>>----Forwarded Message----
> >>>From: merk7777777@...
> >>>Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:55 PM EDT
> >>>Subject: FW: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid
> >>>
> >>>Explicitly, using the notation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concatenation_(mathematics) , the number I misread slightly is
> >>>(10^142-519)||(10^142+1563)||(10^142+1083)||(10^142+301)||(10^142+13)||(10^142+111)||(10^142-563)
> >>>
> >>>----Forwarded Message----
> >>>From: merk7777777@...
> >>>Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:39 PM EDT
> >>>Subject: FW: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>----Forwarded Message----
> >>>From: merk7777777@...
> >>>To: maximilian.hasler@...
> >>>Sent: Wed Aug 10th, 2011 2:36 PM EDT
> >>>Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] 999-digit prime factoid
> >>>
> >>>Correction placed in final sentence here.
> >>>Three 333-digit consecutive primes are apt to exist such that their concatenation in some order is greatest of all non-titanic concatenations (Perhaps the specifics are interesting, but I didn't pursue it). Until n=9, then, there are no 999-digit prime concatenations of n consecutive primes other than the four I thought I described in (interesting enough) detail: Five must be 143 digits and the other two are those immediately under 10^142; and the reason I bothered with posting this is that three of these prime concatenations--the largest of them, I THOUGHT, placing all five of the ones with leading digit 1 left to right from largest to smallest, have the larger of the ones with leading digit 9 in initial position and the smaller one in final position. f still unclear, let me know. FWIW, I don't see much interesting in the seven primes involved other than that the second prime exceeding 10^142 does so by 111. In fact, THE FIRST IS ACTUALLY BEFORE
> >>> THIS IN THE NUMBER THAT LOOKED INTERESTING TO ME, so I made a misstatement in posting this (Likely I would have thought it still worth a mention, but perhaps not). I can reproduce the numbers if actually wanted.
> >>>Jim
> >>>
> >>>On Wed Aug 10th, 2011 11:26 AM EDT Maximilian Hasler wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Dear Jim,
> >>>>
> >>>>for most mathematicians it takes quite some time to translate your
> >>>>statements to formulae which give them a meaning.
> >>>>
> >>>>Could you be so kind as to use conventional mathematical language and
> >>>>explicit formulae
> >>>>instead (or at least in addition) to the "poetical" formulation ?
> >>>>
> >>>>below some concrete questions.
> >>>>
> >>>>On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:59 AM, James Merickel <merk7777777@...> wrote:
> >>>>> Other than for concatenations of 3 of them,
> >>>>
> >>>>which three ?
> >>>>
> >>>>> the largest prime non-titanic concatenation of consecutive primes
> >>>>
> >>>>can you give it more explicitely ?
> >>>>
> >>>>> brackets
> >>>>
> >>>>how can ONE thing bracket something else ?
> >>>>AFAIK you need two things to bracket something in-between !?
> >>>>
> >>>>> the five smallest
> >>>>
> >>>>could you give them ?
> >>>>
> >>>>> over 10^142
> >>>>
> >>>>what does this mean, "over" ?
> >>>>
> >>>>> in decreasing left-to-right order between the two largest under (also in decreasing order).
> >>>>
> >>>>the 2 largest under what ? can you give the values ?
> >>>>
> >>>>>  The next three largest are also concatenations of 7,
> >>>>
> >>>>what means " concatenations of 7 " ?
> >>>>
> >>>>> with the only one leading with the smallest
> >>>>
> >>>>what do you mean ?
> >>>>
> >>>>> having the second smallest in the 3rd position left-to-right.
> >>>>
> >>>>please write the chain of inequalities, it would be so much easier to
> >>>>visualize and understand.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Maximilian
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.