New seq?

[Richard Guy]

The main interest is in the quotient.  This
isn't an integer when  p = 2  or  3.
S(2) = S(3) = 1, which is not divisible
by  p = 2  or  3.  How Neil indicates the
starting gun for such a sequence is a
question I can't answer.  If the S(p) seq
is to be incorporated, then it should, I
agree, begin  1 1 5 7 22 39 68 ..., and
perhaps the first term here is for n=1.  R.

On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Richard Guy wrote:
> 
> >  p   5 7 11 13 17 19 23  29  31  37  41
> > S(p) 5 7 22 39 68 76 92 203 186 333 410
> > quot 1 1  2  3  4  4  4   7   6   9  10
> 
> Neil's superseeker doesn't find 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 7 6 9 10,
> BTW, what's wrong with p(1) = and p(2) = 3 ?  Bye, Frank
> 
> 
>