As noted, I have responded by submitting the suggested sequence to simplify this. I will point out that at least one OEIS editor apparently understood this. The change to the title may still be long; so, David, once you've figured out what I mean perhaps you will have better wording than the obvious change being made that refers to A227775.

JGM

--------------------------------------------

On Tue, 7/30/13, djbroadhurst <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:

Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: seeking smallest 'forward concatenation prime' for power of 79

To: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com

Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 3:53 PM

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,

Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:

>> In base n, the number of primes beginning with a

power of n

>> that are a concatenation of simply decremented

numbers that

>> are less than the smallest prime that is a similar

concatenation

>> beginning with a power of n and proceeding by

increments instead.

>

> simplify the horrendous description above

James' logorrhea is utterly baffling, to me.

I am usually able to understand definitions

posted on this list, even when they are obfuscated.

But the logorrheic convolution above defeats me.

Only sharp minds, like Jack's, seem able to decode it.

Please, Jack, might you give us lesser mortals some idea of

what you have divined from James' verbiage?

David