- --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,

Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:

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

James' logorrhea is utterly baffling, to me.

>> 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

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 - 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

>

>

>

>

> - 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 - 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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>