A066335

[David Wasserman]

I agree that the sequence doesn't match the definition.  Since this  
sequence has a reference, I suggest checking the reference before  
making a correction.  You may find that the sequence is correct and  
the definition is wrong.

  - David

On Jun 21, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Joshua Zucker wrote:

> At least two people have looked at it, so I'm reluctant to assume it's
> wrong, but shouldn't the n=8 term of A066335 be 1000 instead of 1100?
> In fact all the multiples of 4 seem to be off by 4 (or 100 in binary).
>
> If someone out there agrees with me, I'll submit the correction.
>
> Thanks,
> --Joshua Zucker