for anyone wondering, the parent is 100% sarcasm and making fun of editors. (The REJECT is the punchline). You can tell by "How can you be sure that the compu

for anyone wondering, the parent is 100% sarcasm and making fun of editors. (The REJECT is the punchline). You can tell by "How can you be sure that the computer program did not skip any smaller examples?" However, in actuality it really is actually too short. For example, it would be far more interesting to us in 2016 to read this early computational result if it included "reference made to previous attempts to study Euler's conjecture or similar conjectures", also "What led the authors to consider a computer search as opposed to any other approach?" and so forth. Also in 2016 it would be extremely interesting to know "How was the programming done? How long time did the execution take?" For purely history-of-computation reasons. Also it would be really interesting for the authors to have listed their own views on the ramifications, i.e. in what way it advances mathematical theory (or not). Even though the parent comment is sarcastic, as a reader in 2016, I got next to nothing out of the paper. If it had been rejected on the above (sarcastic) basis, and the authors had submitted a six-page version, it would be far more interesting to us. The same would have been true for contemporaries.