duplicate hunting, pt. 9

[Ray Chandler]

> Possible duplicates:
> 
> A055628 and A098049 (this looks familiar, I think there have 
> been one other
> possible duplicate like this)

These two are equivalent - similar to A056215 and A098677 from duplicate hunting pt 3.

> A119786 and A120300

These two are the same - explained in formula for A120300.

> A035737 and A035806 (I'm not familiar with lattices and the attendant
> notation, are these different?)

Neil had a hand in these and can probably tell if they are the same.  

> A092956 and A126696

Terms are the same although offsets are different.  

> 
> 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