A103505 is duplicate of A002378

Max maxale at gmail.com
Mon Apr 10 03:27:19 CEST 2006

Sequence A103505 is a duplicate of A002378 except for the first two terms.
Is there a point to keep A103505 as a separate sequence?
A deviation from A002378 looks inessential to me. At the same time
A103505 misses a lot of references and useful comments from A002378.


More information about the SeqFan mailing list