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

Content added Content deleted
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
== These are NOT unlucky numbers ==
== 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)
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)

== Changes in code ==
I have changed the code and now is the largest Unlucky Number is 322,222
What do you suggest for new task name?