Confused about A000091

[Gene Smith]

On 5/21/06, Gene Smith <genewardsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This says "Description corrected Mar 02 2004. (The old description defined
> A000086 <http://www.research.att.com/%7Enjas/sequences/A000086> not this
> sequence.)" However, when I compute A000086 I get this sequence, not
> A000091. So either I'm making the same mistake, or the correction is wrong.
> Does anyone know about this one?
>

Never mind; I need to invert the quaradic residue symbol to get Maple's
version to align with Shimura's.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/attachments/20060521/5537532b/attachment-0001.htm>