Talk:Numbers with prime digits whose sum is 13: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→These are NOT unlucky numbers: new section) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| 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) |
||
::: Uups, an unmentioned limit in the program "limit = 10000" that doesn't make sense since 322,222 will be the highest number to test.See also [[Permutations_with_some_identical_elements]].<BR>Maybe a new name for the draft before deletion ;-) --[[User:Horst.h|Horst.h]] |
|||
== 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) |
||
Revision as of 10:31, 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
222,223not 13? --Thundergnat (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)- Uups, an unmentioned limit in the program "limit = 10000" that doesn't make sense since 322,222 will be the highest number to test.See also Permutations_with_some_identical_elements.
Maybe a new name for the draft before deletion ;-) --Horst.h
- Uups, an unmentioned limit in the program "limit = 10000" that doesn't make sense since 322,222 will be the highest number to test.See also Permutations_with_some_identical_elements.
- ??? Is the sum of the digits of
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)