Anonymous user
Talk:Truncatable primes: Difference between revisions
→redefinition of truncatable primes: Hmmm.
m (→redefinition of truncatable primes: indicated Latin phrase of ''per se''. -- ~~~~) |
(→redefinition of truncatable primes: Hmmm.) |
||
Line 26:
:: It's not the base of the prime number(s) ''per se'', but when the description mentions taking the right- (or left-most) digits, those digits (in the case of truncatable primes) are specific to base ten. Prime numbers are prime in any (positive integer) base. Taking '''a''' digit from that expression of a prime requires specifying a base in this context. Indeed, there are only 83 right-truncatable primes in base ten, and 4,260 left-truncatable primes in base ten. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Hi Gerard, I still can't see how talking about taking a digit would mean anything but a decimal digit from a base-10 representation of a prime? The task description on RC leaves out any mention of numerical bases. You introduce bases above when you talk of the number of right-truncatable primes but if you had just said that "There are only 83 right-truncatable primes" then wouldn't a base of 10 be automatically inferred? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 21:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
| |||