A054770

[John Conway]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Jud McCranie wrote:
 
> 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):

    In the original Handbook of Integer Sequences, EVERY sequence
began with 1, whether it was logically there or not; and in the
introduction to that book there was an explicit disclaimer making
it clear that no official starts were being chosen.
    
    In the Encyclopedia there's a slightly different disclaimer to
the same effect, except that there there's an entry that tells you
which number term is the first printed one (when there's an agreed
numbering).  The fact that for the Lucas numbers this happens to be 
term number one doesn't make that into any kind of official start -
for many sequences the first printed term is that for  n = 0, and
a few even begin with the  n = 2  term (when there's some disagreement
about the value at  n = 1).  It's a more or less random editorial
decision, probably influenced by the convention of the original
Handbook.

    John Conway