User talk:Farideh Firoozbakht
Hello. I was looking to see if perhaps somebody I knew when younger might be among the Associate Editors here, but my main purpose was to find somebody who would approve three sequences I have in the pipeline and I recognize you from Prime Curios!
I am not sure the cause, but I am getting blocked somewhat and most recently an A.E. named Noe has said without good reason that my current sequences are too short (because they are not three full LINES even though finding elements requires numerous tests of primality over 1000 digits). Since the policy here is 3 TERMS, the person in question is not making much sense. So, I am asking you, please, if you have the time and read here, could you approve them? I am also limited to 3 in editing at any one time, so this is a problem (especially at any time I don't really have significant access to a computer, as now (in a library), and cannot save material anywhere other than notebooks).
Thank you if you happen to have been a good choice. In any case, hello.
Unsigned comment added on 22:42, 17 December 2012 by User:James G. Merickel
- Sorry to butt in, Jim, but allow me to make some suggestions: get a flash drive, or use services like Google Docs. And, more importantly, don't shop Editors. An Editor is that much less likely to heed your request if he thinks you're trying to circumvent another Editor's determination. Alonso del Arte 00:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- What a disgrace! You received your Bachelor's in 2008 in Film Studies, Alonso? This website looks like it has partly become a joke. Editor/Schmeditor. Don't give me advice!James G. Merickel 18:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Shopping around for editors" is indeed a bad idea, Alonso is spot on there. Stabbing at the (assumed) credentials of an editor, as you did, is exceedingly unwise. Joerg Arndt 19 February 2013
I really would care to say that shopping around was not exactly what I was doing. I started out halfway simply looking for big mathematical names and/or people I knew in the way back, only partly because I have a bug up my ass about editing here (in other words, mostly just as a matter of curiosity). It occurred to me that I might ask for new assistance, but it was not the priority at the moment. Here, my purpose was twofold--both to ask for aid and to introduce myself to a fellow person whose name I know from Prime Curios! I am perfectly satisfied to accept that I have not received any assistance. If I were primarily shopping around, then I would not have asked just one person. I will also note that it has not been so high a priority to me that I have sought the founder's assistance, something he might very well profer if I need it badly enough to ask.James G. Merickel 21:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Sketch heuristics on A165696 suggest removing 'more'
It seems the likelihood that the first number n having prime reversals of n^k prime for k=1 through 8 is effectively an approachable problem. I may add a note to the sequence (at some later date) and think the 'more' designation should probably be removed. The heuristically most likely size of the first such number with leading digit 3 is 20 digits.James G. Merickel 06:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Something was wrong with my method, which I am fixing; so the above is likely incorrect. I'll have a further note and then post my prospective edit justifying removal of 'more' at my talk.James G. Merickel 04:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC) In short, never mind about removing 'more'. The final fix I made after I just started editing again was to add a 33/8 factor in calculations (the factor required for heuristics of primality when 2, 3, 5 and 11 are ruled out as factors). It had a dramatic effect. There is less than a 0.5% chance we'd need to go to 15-digit numbers if we start with the knowledge it is at least 12 (and nothing more). There is only a 38% heuristic probability of the number being 14 or more digits. For all intents and purposes, if I am right (as pretty sure I am) that the powers are independent relative to primes other than the 4 mentioned, the chances of a 16-digit number or larger (or even 15- with non-1 leading digit) being correct are extremely negligible. More at my talk later.James G. Merickel 16:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Just a final note here. I had begun a search that had moved to the middle range of 12 digits before I had the misconception here; and I am continuing that. Maximum likelihood is 14 digits with initial 1, and I'm only running 1 PARI window now, so it may take quite a long time.James G. Merickel 19:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)