A097320 error & a new related sequence

[Ray Chandler]

The example for A097320 appears to have been copied from A097318 for which it is correct.  Also the comment appears to
have been copied as well and is in need of correction for A097320.  I will submit updates for both of these problems.

The new sequence you describe includes all the terms of A097320 plus {60, 84, 90, 120, 126, 132, 140, 156, 168, 180,
198, 204, 220, 228, 234, 240, 252, 260, 264, 270, 276, 280,...}.  I will submit this new sequence as well.
Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Leroy Quet [mailto:qq-quet at mindspring.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:37 AM
To: seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr
Subject: A097320 error & a new related sequence

In the example-line of sequence A097320 it says that 60 is in the sequence.
But 60 is not among the terms given.
Since 60 contains 2 primes which divide it only once each, then the error must be with the example line, since it seems
that the author meant the the exponents are strickly decreasing when read from left to right in the prime factorizations
of the terms of the sequence.

Maybe someone could calculate and submit the related sequence where n is included if *at least one* exponent, when being
read from left to right (raising the lowest prime to raising the highest prime) in the prime factorization of n, is less
than the previous exponent.
For example, 90 is included in this new sequence because 90 = 2^1 * 3^2 * 5^1, and the exponent 2 is greater than the
exponent 1 raising the 5.

thanks,
Leroy Quet