# GCD>1 based sequence

Matthew Vandermast ghodges14 at msn.com
Thu Dec 4 23:52:15 CET 2003

```This is similar to the EKG sequence (A064413), except that A064413(n ), for n >2, is always the lowest unpicked positive integer that is not coprime with A064413(n-1).
Starting with the first term, it goes:  1, 2, 4, 6, 3, 9, 12, 8, 10, 5, 15 . . .  (See http://www.research.att.com/projects/OEIS?Anum=A064413.)

The EKG sequence is a permutation of the integers; it would be interesting to see if this is too.

My thanks go both to Leroy and Pieter Moree for their work on my question about A018804.

Best,
Matthew Vandermast

----- Original Message -----
From: Leroy Quet
To: Seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 4:19 PM
Subject: GCD>1 based sequence

Unexpectedly, this sequence is not now in the EIS:

2, 4, 6, 3, 8, 9, 10, 5, 12, 14, 7, 15, 16, 18, 20,...

a(1) = 2;
a(m) = lowest unpicked positive integer which is *not* coprime with at
least one previous term of the sequence.

By "unpicked", I mean the integer is not among {a(1),...,a(m-1)}.
And by "not coprime with at least one previous term", I mean that at
least one prime dividing a(m) also divides at least one element of
{a(1),...,a(m-1)}.
(By these definitions are obvious, I trust.)

I could have sworn this sequence was at one time in the EIS. Am I
thinking of something similarly defined, or was the sequence eliminated
because each term was, say, 1/2 of another sequence's term? (I have not
put this into Superseeker.)

It seems like this (new?) sequence might be a permutation of the integers
>= 2.

(It might be advantageous to define a(0) = 1 for whatever reason. {I am
sure there is a good reason for doing such, but I am unsure now why}.)

thanks,
Leroy Quet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/attachments/20031204/856e7b91/attachment-0001.htm>
```