Pandigital number: A115939 & A115940 etc

[Giovanni Resta]

zak seidov wrote:

> "Pandigital number" contains all (decimal in this
> case) digits at least once, right?
>
> If so the COMMENT's in A115939 & A115940  ain't OK,
> (while A111482 is OK anyway), right?
>
> Some other Giovanni's sequences which include
> pandigital's also may be checked in the respect of
> "finiteness" of pandigital's, right?

You are probably right and maybe editing or correcting some
of the sequences I've submitted is in order.

It mainly depends on which definition
of "pandigital" one is referring to.

Browsing recreational mathematics literature,
I've often seen "pandigital" used in both ways,
that is, meaning a number containing all the 10
digits at least once or meaning a number containing
all the 10 digits exactly once.

To make things worse, some authors call pandigital
also zero-less numbers like 123456789.

I would prefer there is a standard denomination,
something like
1234567890  strictly pandigital
111234566667890  pandigital
123456789  zeroless strictly pandigital or 9-pandigital
and so on. But I do not think that in practice there is such a standard.
(Anyway, often it is clear from the contest. For example,
you can not have a strictly pandigital prime number.)

If you search with keywords Resta (that's me!) and pandigital
you'll find 21 useless sequences that I contributed.
Almost surely they are all finite (even if not stated) because
I'm quite partial to strictly pandigitality.

bye,
giovanni