# A064539 All.<..> A108734(n) = 2^n A108735(n),

zak seidov zakseidov at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 24 20:32:39 CEST 2005

```Still such formulas are OK as well, right, zak
A108734(n) = 2^n A108735(n), offset=0.

--- "Robert G. Wilson v" <rgwv at rgwv.com> wrote:

> Everyone,
>
> 	As satisfying to me is putting it into a nice
> Mathematica program. So in essence
> I have supplied the formula.
>
> Bob.
>
> Ralf Stephan wrote:
>
> > Zak,
> > for the primes are primes in all bases, the primes
> are not 'base'.
> > But if you have the sequence 'sum of digits is
> prime' then one must
> > know the base of the digits (usually 10) so that
> would be 'base'.
> > So whenever you do something with digits please
> >
> > Why 'base' sequences are uninteresting, I can give
> you one reason:
> > we like to find formulas for and interconnections
> between sequences,
> > it's a real sport here. The problem: most 'base'
> sequences don't have
> > these or they are really simple, like 10^n-1 for
> all-nines or so.
> > But to get the difficult ones, it is better to
> study base-2 sequences
> > first because they are easier to tackle than
> base-10. So, 'base-10' is
> > either too easy or too difficult so most of us
> dismiss them altogether.
> >
> > I mean, what can be more satisfying than putting
> an %F line... ahm a
> > formula on a previously untouched sequence?
> >
> >
> > ralf
> >
>

____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports