duplicate hunting, pt. 11

[Andrew Plewe]

> Possible duplicates:
> 
> A076098 and A081970
> http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=id:A076098|id:A081970
> 

This was addressed in my earlier response to "duplicate hunting, pt. 9":

> 
> Sequences A076096 and A081968 reference sequences A076099 and A081967
> respectively, which differ from each other by one term:
> 
> A076099(28) = 12011154239478262707557453127548617090909593750
> A081967(28) = 11022732501667945875061568782593750
> 
> It appears that if the 28th term in A081967 is wrong, then so 
> is sequence
> A081968 which, I believe, is supposed to reference that term 
> (A081968(7)).
> If the 28th terms match, then A076099 and A081967 are 
> duplicates along with
> A076096 and A081968.
> 
A081967(28) = 11022732501667945875061568782593750 is correct.  A076099(28) should be corrected to that value.
Corrections have already been made to A076096, A076097, A076098 by Wasserman; A076095 does not need correcting.  
A081967 is a duplicate of A076099 (as corrected above).
A081968 is a duplicate of A076096
A081969 is a duplicate of A076097
A081970 is a duplicate of A076098

Ray Chandler