[seqfan] Re: Proof of the A186080 conjecture

[Hans Havermann]

>> I hope you realize that Gustavus Simmons verified it only for k^4 <  
>> 2.8 * 10^14.
>> In other words, for k < 4091.


Maximilian Hasler:

> I think the largest term of A56810 can be supposed to be the current
> limit of exhaustive search.

Of course. And most of us willing to spare the computer clock cycles  
could easily do better than that. My intent was to highlight Matevž's  
apparent misunderstanding of the Simmons reference (which first  
appeared in 1970 when the low upper bound might actually have meant  
something). I see Neil has changed A186080 with regard to my  
clarification but, really, the mention of Simmons is pointless for the  
purpose in which it was initially provided (which was to put the  
conjecture on an empirical footing). I see that Wikipedia's entry on  
"palindromic number" still sports Matevž's "this conjecture has been  
tested by Simmons up to 10^14". Sad, really.