Problems with A000028/A000379.

[David W. Wilson]

Here is my guess as to the history of the amazing sequence A.

1959: Lambek and Moser publish the definition of A.

1960's: NJAS adds correct version of A into his punch card database as
A000028, a very early sequence.

1973: NJAS publishes correct version of A as sequence N0187 in his "Handbook
of Integer Sequences."

1994: NJAS goes online with his database as a mail service. At this point
A000028 would have been correct.

1995: NJAS publishes correct version of A as sequence M0520 in his
"Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences."

1995: The OEIS web site is created.

At some unknown point, A000028 acquired its present definition. This may
have happened in the remote past. At any rate, it was apparently not
understood that this definition conflicted with the amazing property,
understandable given that the two definitions dictate quite a few identical
initial elements.

Some time between 1995 and 2000, A000028 was updated to conform to the
current definition, at which point it became unamazing. The complementary
sequence A000379 was likely also updated around the same time.

Around 2000, the amazing sequence A064175 was added. By that time, the
elements of A000028 had probably already been changed to conform to the
current definition, and would no longer be identical to A064175. The author
of A064175 would not have noticed any connection between A064175 and
A000028.

2007: I check A000028 and confirm that it is not amazing, and find that
A064175 is amazing.

So, the question is

Do we leave A000028/A000379 as is, or do we revert them to their value when
A000028 was published as N0187 and M0520? If we revert them, what do we do
with A064175/A064176?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: T. D. Noe [mailto:noe at sspectra.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:56 AM
> To: David Wilson; Sequence Fans
> Subject: Re: Problems with A000028/A000379.
> 
> I looked at sequence M0520, which became A000028, in the 1995 book form
> of
> OEIS.  There the sequence starts the same as A064175 -- it has the
> "amazing" property.  Maybe the sequence was incorrectly modified
> sometime
> after 1995.  So the comment in A000028 was correct in the past.
> 
> Tony
>