[seqfan] Re: Shortest sequence to get prime

[Neil Fernandez]

Hi Alonso,

You could go for the list with the smallest product:

> 13 {2, 19}  rather than {3, 17}
> 31 {2, 3, 5} r.t. {61}
> 43 {2, 3, 7} r.t. {5, 17}
> 53 {3, 5, 7} r.t. {2, 79}
> 67 {2, 3, 11} r.t. {7, 19}?
> 71 {2, 5, 7} r.t. {3, 47}?
> 79 {2, 3, 13} r.t. {157}?

Neil

In message <CAGyGvfU-VOb2qyGXQbYi7PZy3zjAfSSQzi2-1RzBQXj1oCjSEQ at mail.gma
il.com>, Alonso Del Arte <alonso.delarte at gmail.com> writes

<snip>

>Maybe I should choose the list with the smaller sum, so for 31, {2, 3, 5}
>is preferred to {61}. Though I feel like maybe {2, 19} should nonetheless
>be preferred to {3, 17} for 13.

-- 
Neil Fernandez