Talk:Numbers with prime digits whose sum is 13: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
(but...but...)
Line 2: Line 2:
: "and sum of them is 13. " --[[User:Horst.h|Horst.h]]
: "and sum of them is 13. " --[[User:Horst.h|Horst.h]]
:: ??? Is the sum of the digits of <code>222,223</code> not 13? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 10:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
:: ??? Is the sum of the digits of <code>222,223</code> not 13? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 10:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

== These are NOT unlucky numbers ==

Unlucky number have a long established definition and this is not it. (See [[oeis:A050505|OEIS A050505]].) These are "Integers in base 10 whose digits are all prime and sum to 13". or perhaps "Unlucky digit sums" My question is: what is the significance of the digits being prime? What property makes these numbers "unlucky"? If it is the summing to 13 why wouldn't 168 be "unlucky"? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 10:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:20, 29 September 2020

The reference implementation's output (Ring) currently ends at 7,222. But there are more unlucky numbers. What about 222,223? --Chunes (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"and sum of them is 13. " --Horst.h
??? Is the sum of the digits of 222,223 not 13? --Thundergnat (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

These are NOT unlucky numbers

Unlucky number have a long established definition and this is not it. (See OEIS A050505.) These are "Integers in base 10 whose digits are all prime and sum to 13". or perhaps "Unlucky digit sums" My question is: what is the significance of the digits being prime? What property makes these numbers "unlucky"? If it is the summing to 13 why wouldn't 168 be "unlucky"? --Thundergnat (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Talk:Numbers_with_prime_digits_whose_sum_is_13?oldid=302741"