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

Expand Messages
• ... 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
Message 1 of 11 , Jul 30, 2013
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 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
Message 2 of 11 , Jul 30, 2013
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:
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
• 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.
Message 3 of 11 , Jul 31, 2013
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
--------------------------------------------

Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: seeking smallest 'forward concatenation prime' for power of 79
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 3:53 PM

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

>

> 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.
Message 4 of 11 , Jul 31, 2013
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
> 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:
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> > 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
>
> >>
>
> >> 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/
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.