Talk:Home prime

Any initial issues that need fixing?

I'm going to sleep without this quite done. If you happen to see something that's contentually incorrect or something where it's clear I'm not going to meet certain standards without being advised, please tell me. An administrator--PrimeHunter--has already signed off on the topic as certainly notable, so that will not be a problem. If I should have saved this somewhere else before going to sleep, I didn't know where. Let me know if that's the case. One thing: I will be sending out e-mails to determine if anything theoretical of substance exists but only in private communication.Julzes (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've placed references and categories at the bottom and included the topic in Integer sequences. I'm going to continue making certain improvements, like further mention at 49 (number), 77 (number), and other appropriate places, and also connecting the references with the text.Julzes (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of standard conventions from WP:MOS and WP:MOSMATH were not followed; please see my recent edits. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided that for such a short article on such an obscure topic that going to the trouble of laying out inline citations is not a worthwhile use of my time. I guess the article could reasonably be flagged for that, but anyone who wants to actually find something in the sources given is going to have little difficulty. I may take the time required to get the article up to 100%, but not soon. Also, I still have to send out the e-mails I indicated I would. I'll take care of that today.Julzes (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name change to Homeprime

This is Julzes (resource-limited). I'm recommending all users of the term 'home prime', here and elsewhere, switch to a single word, 'homeprime' (This is a proposition with no proper single recipient, and, under the circumstances, only affects the article at a future time if it is adopted ). In addition, I am reporting a WP:OR fact here: Concatenation of the alphabetical positions of Home prime yields--at the beginning of its homeprime sequence--81513516189135=3*5*1069*5083474661, 761*4613265549901, 3*13*89*1997*1098538223, .... I am claiming discovery (personally, though I suspect it may be a rediscovery) on the 14th anniversary of the date that Gary Kasparov was defeated by Deep Blue (as the first example of a chess world champion being defeated in match play by a computer). I am at limits in my resources, so above intentions to contact people have not been fulfilled and are less likely now for the immediate future than they were theoretically when the matter was raised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.152.77 (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot understand most of your post, but I don't see a valid reason here for changing the name of the page. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to understand it. Sorry I am expressing frustration in my personal life this way. Obviously if homeprimes are going to have a central role in my first book (if I write it), then I can start the change I am wishing for here in that medium. It's not anything urgent. Not close.173.15.152.77 (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Away prime

I don't know whether or not anybody has named the variant of home primes that concatenates prime powers, but given that the symbol '^' is in use for exponents, 'A' and 'H' have resemblance to each other with the slight difference we see, and that it is a simple modification that might reasonably be given consideration, it seems that the title might reasonably be chosen naturally and so I mention (here for no great reason, other than that there is the attendant question of whether this variant already has appeared somewhere).

Example: AP(54)=227. Julzes (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expect to give super justification and also introduce new variants, but for now I just will say that to simply draw to article I am going to replace the 10 case example with a 4-d in a few days.Julzes (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new?

Just wondering if worldofnumbers.com is being over-relied-upon and there has been unreported progress (or if it really is stalled).Julzes (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I received an It-is-very-hard & Not-heard [de Geest]. Julzes (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the intelligent non-specialist

Like nearly all mathematics pages on Wikipedia, this is written for people who already have mathematics degrees. Koro Neil (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]