25320Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: seeking smallest 'forward concatenation prime' for power of 79
- Jul 31 8:53 AMAs 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.
On Tue, 7/30/13, djbroadhurst <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:
Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: seeking smallest 'forward concatenation prime' for power of 79
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 3:53 PM
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:
>> In base n, the number of primes beginning with a
power of n
>> that are a concatenation of simply decremented
>> are less than the smallest prime that is a similar
>> beginning with a power of n and proceeding by
> 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?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>