UO-Sigma PN

[Pfoertner, Hugo]

-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: y.kohmoto [mailto:zbi74583 at boat.zero.ad.jp]
Gesendet am: 26 March, 2004 07:53
An: seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr
Betreff: RE : UO-Sigma PN

    Neil wrote :
    >but as a sequence A000002 is very boring!
    >maybe it should be a comment on the first sequence

    Yes, it seems to be correct, if one see the first 50 terms.
    The fact that no sequence which changes slowly exists on OEIS is an
problem

    Then, the following sequence is not fit for OEIS.
    a(n) : 8193, 8195, 8197, 8199, 8201, 8203, 8205, 8207, 8209, 8211, 8213,
8215, 8217, 8219, 8221, 8223, 8225, ....

    a(1)=8191, a(n)=[2.00014*a(n-1)+3]/2^r, where 2^r is the highest power
of p dividing [2.00014*a(n-1)+3].

    It seems to be boring, because this sequence looks like a liner sequence
that a(n)=a(n-1)+2 .
    But it is not boring.   The  sequence changes  its   behavior at 3046-th
term,  it becomes a random sequence after the term.

    Yasutoshi

Yasutoshi, SeqFans,

I may have a bad taste, but if we follow your suggestion than we can find
zillions of (interesting??) sequences involving some real
parameter, maybe of the form integer + small eps.

What is so special about 0.00014? Why not 0.000141516171819?

 From the FAQ:

Q: What are some of the reasons why sequences are rejected?
A: Common reasons are:

    * sequence is not well defined
    * definition of sequence involves an arbitrary but large parameter

In my opinion this should be amended by something like
"an arbitrary large integer or deliberately chosen real parameter"

Hugo