Talk:Numbers with prime digits whose sum is 13: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (but...but...) |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→These are NOT unlucky numbers: new section) |
||
| 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) |
|||