As we all know, (10**n-1)/9 is surely not a prime when n is composed, because (10**(k*l)-1)/9 = ((10**(k*l)-1)/(10**k-1)) * ((10**k - 1)/9). Thus, they do have special factoring properties, but this doesn't mean that they are either more often or less often primes then other numbers.
In reply to Re^3: Rotationally Prime Numbers Revisited
by ambrus
in thread Rotationally Prime Numbers Revisited
by Limbic~Region
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |