Talk:There are 77 Minimal Primes in Base 10

OEIS suggests there are only 26 minimal primes in base 10: https://oeis.org/A071062. Is a different definition being used here? Caliburn (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Our definition has the added arbitrary (and IMO pointless) stipulations that the primes must be greater than the number base. Hence $2$, $3$, $5$ and $7$ are not included, but as a consequence every single $2$-digit prime is then included, as are all the numbers which include $2$, $3$, $5$ and $7$. Can't see why. --prime mover (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've gone further and checked the literature on this subject, and can find nowhere anything backing up that extra bewildering criterion. --prime mover (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, see my GitHub page about the minimal primes in bases 2 <= b <= 36 (currently no data for bases b = 29, 31, 35), I only consider the primes > b in my research, and in this page I give the reason why the primes <= b are excluded. --Richard47 (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You would be advised not to call these "minimal primes" then because that is not what these are. I would guess that the reason for excluding those primes less than $b$ is to give you something to research that nobody else has. I still unfortunately don't see the point, and as it's practically impossible to read at the moment, I can't warm to it. Perhaps if it were written in a presentable format (you know what the problem is, you refuse to write in $\LaTeX$ despite having been asked repeatedly, and that is rude) then maybe I'd be able to see what's so special. --prime mover (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)