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

Expand Messages
• 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 1 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.