Problems with A000028/A000379.

[Max Alekseyev]

On Dec 20, 2007 8:09 AM, David W. Wilson <wilson.d at anseri.com> wrote:

> I disagree that A131180 is any more natural than A000028. If anything, A000028 is simpler, since it legislates only a(1) while A131180 legislates both a(1) and a(2).

This is not true. A000028 also legislates a(1) and a(2). Formally we
can drop legislation of a(2) but this is true for both A000028 and
A131180.

> The argument seems pointless, however, since A131180 = A026416 and should be merged into that sequence, not A000028.

Merging A131180 and A026416 indeed does make sense. But if A000028 is
not going to get the amazing property back, I would vote for merging
A131180/A026416 with A000028 also.

Max