- On Mon, 7/29/13, James Merickel <moralforce120@...> wrote:
> I am trying to add terms to http://oeis.org/A173189 , which gives the number for

""""

> each integral base of primes obtainable by concatenating

> numbers decremented in sequence from a power of the base

> that are less than the smallest that is obtainable by

> concatenating numbers increasing in sequence from a power of

> the base.

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.

"""

Why does 10000000000000100000000000011000000000000210000000000003100000000000041000000000000510000000000006100000000000071000000000000810000000000009

not yield any hits on either OEIS or google?

As it's a member of the sequence that your sequence is defined in terms of, one would expect that more primitive sequence to have been added first? Which would then enable you to simplify the horrendous description above.

Phil

--

() ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign

/\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed

[stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani] - 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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>