duplicate hunting, pt. 15

[Joshua Zucker]

On 5/12/07, Jon Schoenfield <jonscho at hiwaay.net> wrote:
> > 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?

My amateurish calculations seem to show that they are two different
definitions of the same sequence.

--Joshua Zucker