duplicate hunting, pt. 15

[Jon Schoenfield]

Pardon me for jumping in ...   :-)

> A107730 and A110810 and (possibly) A061909

For what it's worth, A061909 and A110810 are identical through at least n = 
100000000.  (Perhaps there's a fairly straightforward proof that they're 
completely identical?)

> Possible duplicates:
>
> A025067 and A024371

This reminds me of the situation with two other sequences by the same 
author -- A024468 and A025080 (the latter of which has since been changed to 
keyword:dead).  I think we concluded that A025080's terms didn't agree with 
the definition it had had before it was changed to its current definition of 
"Duplicate of A024468" ....

Of A025067 and A024371, is it the case that one of the definitions really 
yields the sequence 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 18, etc., and the other doesn't?  Or are 
they both wrong?

-- Jon

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Plewe" <aplewe at sbcglobal.net>
To: <seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 3:44 AM
Subject: duplicate hunting, pt. 15


> Straightforward duplicates:
>
> A107730 and A110810 and (possibly) A061909
> A077339 and A077341
> A126082 and A120887
> A108131 and A108133
> A127466 and A127482
> A117852 and A124625 and A124645
> A033559 and A127320
>
>
> Possible duplicates:
>
> A025067 and A024371
>
> http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=id:A025067|id:A024371
>
> A126181 and A128716 (after adjusting for offset differences)
>
> http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=id:A126181|id:A128716
>
>
>
>    -Andrew Plewe-
>
>
>
>