Re: prime numbers and African artifact

J Lopez (jlopez@panix.com)
16 Jul 1995 23:10:18 -0400

In <3tv9dg$fmm@solutions.solon.com> seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) writes:

>> What's the easy way to show that 254365465431652436514232 is not
>>prime again?

>Simple!

>2 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 1 +
>6 + 5 + 2 + 4 + 3 + 6 + 5 + 1 + 4 + 2 + 3 + 2 = 91

>9 + 1 = 10.

>1 + 0 = 1.

>1 is not a multiple of three, so the whole number is not a multiple of
>three, so it must be prime!

Sheesh. I can't *believe* you went through all that trouble (and added
wrong too.) Clearly the number *isn't* prime because it's palindromic. 

-- 

jlopez  ::  "How the hell can you write an essay on E. M. Forster with almost

             total reference to Harold Robbins?"  --Willy Russell