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

Expand Messages
• ... 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
Message 1 of 6 , Aug 10, 2011
• 0 Attachment
----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
Message 2 of 6 , Aug 10, 2011
• 0 Attachment
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:
Message 3 of 6 , Aug 10, 2011
• 0 Attachment
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
Message 4 of 6 , Aug 10, 2011
• 0 Attachment
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]
>
• Message 5 of 6 , Aug 10, 2011
• 0 Attachment
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.
Message 6 of 6 , Aug 10, 2011
• 0 Attachment
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.
> >>>>