Eisenstein-Fibonacci sequences

[Jonathan Post]

Max's position is well taken.  I think that "random" overstates it
somewhat.  I think that even careful definition leaves a residuum of chaos
in the proper sense.  I have not yet posted any seq based on this, out of
caution.  When I do, I'll probably post just one and see what happens.

On 11/9/06, Max A. <maxale at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/7/06, Joerg Arndt <arndt at jjj.de> wrote:
> > * Jonathan Post <jvospost3 at gmail.com> [Nov 08. 2006 13:29]:
> > > Thank you, Joerg.  That was interesting.  Does your generating
> function
> > > hypothesis hold when I extend the sequence by another 5 values, to
> a(n) = 0, 0,
> > > 1, 1, 3, 1, 7, 4,
> > > 14, 17, 28, 54, 66, 143, 182, 350, 687, 987, 2611, 4298 ? Again,
> assuming that
> > > I got the elementary algebra and arithmetic correct.
> >
> > Alas, the function I gave was spurious, with the
> > additional terms no OGF is found.
>
> Not surprising at all!
> This sequence is not well-defined (see above in this discussion), so
> one may view its terms as random numbers. How can they have an OGF? ;)
>
> Max
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/attachments/20061109/bdce0b42/attachment-0002.htm>