A054770

[Jud McCranie]

At 10:24 AM 6/7/00 -0400, John Conway wrote:

     I think that's an unhelpful remark. There's no universally
>agreed "start" to either sequence.  What IS universally agreed is
>the numbering of the two sequences:
>
>     n   0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ...
>    Fn   0  1  1  2  3  5  8 13 21 ...
>    Ln   2  1  3  4  7 11 18 29 47 ...
>
>so that all you mean is that you prefer to start the Fibonacci
>sequence at the terms  F2, F3  and the Lucas one at  L1, L2.

Sorry, actually I made a typo, I meant for the Fibonacci sequence to start 
1,1 (not 1,2 as I typed).


>     I'm sure many people would prefer to start the Fibonacci one
>with  F1,F2,  while others prefer to include the n=0 terms.  I'm
>sure most mathematicians (myself included) don't think it sensible
>to choose any fixed start.

I understand what is meant by the zeroth term, but A54770 clearly states 
that it is using 1,3,4 (A204), not 2,1,3,4 (A32):

%S A054770 
2,6,9,13,17,20,24,27,31,35,38,42,46,49,53,56,60,64,67,71,74,78,82,85,
%T A054770 
89,93,96,100,103,107,111,114,118,122,125,129,132,136,140,143,147,150,
%U A054770 154,158,161,165,169,172,176,179,183,187,190,194,197,201,205,208,212
%N A054770 Not the sum of distinct Lucas numbers 1,3,4,7,11 ... (A000204).
%O A054770 0,1
%K A054770 nonn,easy
%Y A054770 Cf. A003263.



+--------------------------------------------------------+
|                  Jud McCranie                          |
|                                                        |
| 137*2^261147+1 is prime!  (78,616 digits, 5/2/00)      |
+--------------------------------------------------------+