biquam variations

[David W. Wilson]

"Christian G.Bower" wrote:
> 
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I was doing some calculations of biquams and noticed some things.
> 
> First of all we have Dave Wilson A064686 counts base 3 biquams that are strictly
> length n (no leading 0's allowed) while John Layman's A064671 counts base 4
> biquams that allow leading zeroes, but do not allow a string of all zeroes. It
> would be nice to have a consensus of the standard way to count them before too
> many biquam sequences are generated.
> 
> Let's call Dave's A. and John's B.
> 
> I propose method C which is like B except it counts the string of all 0's. This
> makes it more like a problem of strings or ordered lists without the numeric
> interpretation of a string of base-k digits.
> 
> Since one can easily calculate one method from any other, there is no reason to
> list them all the different ways.

You can rework A064686 if you wish.  I regret that I currently don't have the
time to compute these sequences.