A070240 is duplicate of A007369

[David Wilson]

I concur.  I can prove that except for the initial 1, which arguably does 
not belong in A070240, that A070240 = A007369.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Max" <relf at unn.ac.ru>
To: <seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr>
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:40 PM
Subject: A070240 is duplicate of A007369


> First of all, I've verified the sequence A070240 and found that the 
> current last term "40" should not be present in the sequence.
> Second, it is easy to see that the procedure described at A070240 is 
> nothing more than just sieving the values of A007369 out of the sequence 
> of positive integers. It is very similar to the Sieve of Eratosthenes 
> sieving the prime numbers.
>
> So besides the first (artificially introduced) term "1", the sequence 
> A070240 is a duplicate of A007369.
> I think there is no much sense to keep it as a separate sequence.
>
> Max