Talk:Smallest Number which is Multiplied by 99 by Appending 1 to Each End

My bad for not actually checking the calculation when writing the proof for this:

The number in the article of Hunsucker and Pomerance is correct. (With a 5 instead of a 3 in the 5th last digit)

This is possibly unrelated, but is the prime factorization really necessary for a multiplication result? --RandomUndergrad (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Well found. Good job.

No it's not necessary at all. Just an affectation of mine, I find it interesting to establish a prime factorization of any big numbers we get in contexts like this. --prime mover (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

... more to the point, I myself should have checked it when I posted the result up in the first place. I should have seen the discrepancy. No worries. All fixed, erratum page issued. --prime mover (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)