Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

25321Re: seeking smallest 'forward concatenation prime' for power of 79

Expand Messages
  • James Merickel
    Jul 31, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I gather that Mr. Brennen meant the list to exclude powers of 10 from his remark on searching base 79, and this would be correct.

      --- On Tue, 7/30/13, Jack Brennen <jfb@...> wrote:

      > From: Jack Brennen <jfb@...>
      > Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: seeking smallest 'forward concatenation prime' for power of 79
      > To: "djbroadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...>
      > Cc: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 5:46 PM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > I divined the "lesser problem" from the
      > base 10 curiosity previously linked.
      >
      >
      >
      > Basically, take all of the positive integers that can be
      > obtained
      >
      > by starting with a power of 10 and concatenating consecutive
      > increasing
      >
      > numbers:
      >
      >
      >
      > 10
      >
      > 1011
      >
      > 101112
      >
      > 10111213
      >
      > 1011121314
      >
      > 100
      >
      > 100101
      >
      > 100101102
      >
      > 1000
      >
      > 10001001
      >
      > 100010011002
      >
      > ...
      >
      >
      >
      > The smallest such prime is the 140 digit number linked as a
      > prime
      >
      > curio in James' first post on this subject, consisting
      > of the ten
      >
      > consecutive numbers from 10^13 to 10^13+9 concatenated.
      >
      >
      >
      > The fundamental question to this thread is to find the
      > smallest such
      >
      > prime when operating in base 79. I assume that the trivial
      > example
      >
      > of 10(base 79) is excluded, although it is prime.
      >
      >
      >
      > I ended up searching up to about 6500 decimal digits without
      > finding
      >
      > such a prime.
      >
      >
      >
      > On 7/30/2013 3:53 PM, djbroadhurst wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > --- 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
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > ------------------------------------
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > > The Prime Pages : http://primes.utm.edu/
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic