[seqfan] Re: Shortest sequence to get prime

[Alonso Del Arte]

Smallest product? Of course! That makes a lot more sense than smallest sum.
Thank you very much, Neil.

Al

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:15 AM Neil Fernandez <primeness at borve.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>


-- 
Alonso del Arte
Author at SmashWords.com
<https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/AlonsoDelarte>
Musician at ReverbNation.com <http://www.reverbnation.com/alonsodelarte>