Genady

I mean that. +1. As a bonus exercise, prove that it is the only answer.

Including GR, AFAIK.

... while producing all his great works long before that.

Find a polynomial function, f(n) whose output is a prime number for any input number, n.

This reminds me of the passage from Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter":

It is a point. A point at a different time or in a different place, is a different point.

The length, width, and hight are spatial intervals rather than spatial points. Similarly, "time it takes to boil an egg" is a temporal interval rather than a point in time. The spacetime concept does not combine such intervals. It combines the points. For example, "7 pm on the corner of 5th Avenue and 24th Street in NYC" is a point in spacetime.

At least, our votes have helped one D Senator and one D Representative.

I understand your frustration, but you don't think that such papers hinder a progress of foundational physics, do you?

+1. However, the "take some time" part can be accomplished in three steps, like this: Is this what you've meant?

That is, 48 + 68 + 98.

Oh. I found the first one with pen and paper.

Thank you. I don't have any progress to report on my part, but would ask you to clarify your answers somewhat (to get a hint, maybe): Do you mean 3-digits and 6-digits prime numbers? There are more than these three factors, aren't there? (Only these three fall short of 2484.) Or, do you mean these three just repeat many times in the factorization?

What do you mean? Number of digits?

I got one factor. 17.

Your recollections reminded me of this Feynman's parable (from "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter"):

I'll post my approach, for the record.

I see. A general form (However, the OP was about how people approach that equation rather than a mathematics behind it.) (I see how YOU approach it 🙂 )

Could you elabotate?

I just thought of something else, for a case when one sees one solution but not the other:

It is not a difficult equation. I wonder, how people approach it. Here it is: \[x+\frac{1}{x}=4\frac{1}{4}\] (Please, use spoiler in your response.)

I live with the clear, rigorous construction of rational numbers ("fractions") using equivalence classes for very long; this construction is obvious and intuitive to me. OTOH, I realize that it is not fit to school children. I also know many intelligent adults who think that math is just "following the rules", which I think is the outcome of poor presentation of mathematical concepts in schools. So, I wonder what justifications/explanations of these "rules" for school children are there, if at all.