http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/page.php/MinimalPrime.html
James Wanless
(consider primes of form 6660000000000....00000000000049, of which there are
infinitely many)
James
David W. Cantrell
> I believe this page to be in error:
Quite true. For example, the sentence "The empty string is a subsequnce of
of every string." contains two typographical errors.
> (consider primes of form 6660000000000....00000000000049, of which there
> are infinitely many)
So what? Did you read their definition of substring (subsequence)?
David
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
James Wanless
I've now looked at your paper.
The first mistake (I suspect therer are other very similar later) occurs
with the fifth sentence of Case 1b. " Thus we may assume... and either zero
or one 8."
z can perfectly well contain 3 or more zeroes - your assumption is
completely arbitrary. It's not actually _wrong_ except in the context that
you are trying to generate a minimal list. I could easily give you a general
minimal list for any set (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0). Or, to put it another way -
why do you bother to draw the distinction between the larger numbers on your
list with varying numbers of the same digit - just quote each digit once and
leave it at that - _or_ appreciate instead that there are infinitely long
strings of digits that are equally prime and equally valid.
It's not really your fault - Lothaire's paper is obviously clearly garbage
too...
James
"James Wanless" <ja...@grok.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:FN6N7.4517$PL6.6...@news1.cableinet.net...
David W. Cantrell
[snip of stuff that "is obviously clearly garbage too..."]
> I could easily give you a
> general minimal list for any set (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0).
Right. But, last time I checked, 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 0 are not primes.
[snip of more stuff that "is obviously clearly garbage too..."]
> It's not really your fault - Lothaire's paper is obviously clearly
> garbage too...
Sad, sad, sad!
Robin Chapman
> I could easily give you a general
> minimal list for any set (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0).
Those aren't primes.
> It's not really your fault - Lothaire's paper is obviously clearly garbage
> too...
Are you referring to
M. Lothaire,"Combinatorics on Words"?
That's a book, not a paper, and is not "clearly garbage".
Robin Chapman
--
Posted from webcacheh08a.cache.pol.co.uk [195.92.67.72]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG