(In reply to
re: interesting side topic  economical numbers by Dej Mar)
For speed, I used QB64 in the list of purported economical numbers. When that prints to the screen, the screen cannot be copied onto the clipboard, the way it can from QB 4.5's Commandprompt. So I transcribed the first number of the 9economicalnumber sequence by hand.
But I took the last three digits from the first number of the previous sequence. I then factored by hand blindly without counting digits. The 9number sequence of economical numbers actually begins at 10,990,399.
10990399 = 7 * 31 * 50647
10990400 = 2^6 * 5^2 * 6869
10990401 = 3 * 79^2 * 587 (frugal)
10990402 = 2 * 59 * 93139
10990403 = 10990403 (prime)
10990404 = 2^2 * 3^6 * 3769
10990405 = 5 * 271 * 8111
10990406 = 2 * 7^3 * 37 * 433
10990407 = 3 * 3663469
So the prime pages' implication does not hold; so perhaps they weren't really trying to imply that the 9sequence they found was the lowest.
Correction made for typo in previous version of 10990400 = 2^6 * 5^2 * 6869.
Edited on September 15, 2012, 3:28 pm

Posted by Charlie
on 20120915 10:33:20 