Love sequence with 69

[Henry Gould]

Okay Eric,

Perhaps we could go to another venue by recalling the games we play with 
a pocket calculator where the digits are based on a square looking "8"
so we have the figure to work with:
 _
|_|
|_|

and then we see when we turn the display upside down that certain 
letters are formed. Now we could generate a sequence with the rule of 
formation being that those numbers are included that when read upside 
down yield legitimate words in Webster's Dictionary. You see, I think 
there should be repository someplace for such numbers: Voila OEIS!
What thinkest Thou?

A bientot,

Henri. Hank les Cinq




Eric Angelini wrote:
>  
>   
>> 12,13,15,17,24,36,64,67,69,81,93,162,172,179,182,263,291,293,309,312,391,
>> 401,402,403,496,506,561,901,1091,1106,1107,1108,1206,1291,1301,1391,1409...
>>     
>
> Why not integrate 72 as well?
> Really now, this is nonsense.
>
> ---------------
> ... Hello Henry,
> don't be upset, it was ment as a "fantasy" seq. in my first mail ;-)
> I didn't intend to submit it to the OEIS, anyway -- my idea was to
> show that one could read some integers backwards under some specific
> conditions; "backwards" lead me to imagine which pair of digits could
> play this two-way role in a sequence; I started with "0" and "1" (the
> two first digits which come to mind -- and the basic symbols for binary
> notation -- but the "0" was too difficult to handle; what other pair of
> digits could be used for the example? I thought (innocently and with
> a blink of the eye) to 6 and 9 which are themselves kind of "reverse"
> one from the other. I produced the first sequence in a couple of
> minutes, by hand, just to show the idea -- then, after Jim's remark 
> (a typo I had left behind, ruining partially the seq.), I saw that I 
> could arbitrarly include the integer 69 -- as another blink of the eye!
> Is all this making more sense?
> Best,
> É.
>
>
>
>
>
>