Recommendations for A000028 and A000379

[David Wilson]

This is a copy of my previous message. I have changed the subject line so 
that NJAS can easily pick my recommendations out of the flurry of recent 
messages regarding A000028 and A000379.

I suggest these steps to follow up on the A000028/A0000379 fix:

-----------------------------------------------------
On A000028 (and possibly A026416) add the following comment:

%C A000028 Some time after 1995, the definition of A000028 was changed so
that it differed from N0187 and A0520. This error was found and corrected in
12/2007. The erroneous version of A000028 was essentially the same as
A026416.

-----------------------------------------------------
A064175 is now a duplicate of A000028. Merge A064175 into A000028 and kill
it as a duplicate.

-----------------------------------------------------
A064176 is now a duplicate of A000379. Merge A064176 into A000028 and kill
it as a duplicate.

-----------------------------------------------------
A131180 is a duplicate of A026416. Merge A131180 into A026416. Since
A131180 is only a couple months old, you might want to just reuse the
A-number rather than kill it.

-----------------------------------------------------
Have the team check the programs on A000028 to make sure they generate
the correct version and not the erroneous one. Programs that generate the
erroneous sequence can be moved to A026416. The correct sequence has
a(29) = 60.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sift through the OEIS and make sure any references to A000028, A000379,
A026416 are accurate. References to A064175/A064176/A131180 should be
changed to A000028/A000379/A026416.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "N. J. A. Sloane" <njas at research.att.com>
To: <seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr>
Cc: <njas at research.att.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:21 PM
Subject: re A000028 and A000379


> Dear Seqfans:
>
> Thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion.
> Indeed, the original definitions of A000028 and A000379
> have somehow been corrupted over the years.
> I have restored the original definitions, added Maple
> programs, and recomputed the entries and the b-files.
>
> The definition given for A000028 that was there until
> an hour ago was:
>
> %N A000028 A 2-way classification of integers: a(1) = 2, a(2) = 3, and for 
> n > 2, a(n) is smallest number > a(n-1) not of the form a(i)*a(j) for 1 <= 
> i < j < n.
>
> This is not the right definition of A000028 and has now been replaced.
>
> I have not been following the discussion about these sequences very
> closely.  Now that A000028 and A000379 have been corrected,
> perhaps members of the list can suggest what further changes
> should be made.
>
> Best regards
>
> Neil