duplicate hunting, pt. 17

[Andrew Plewe]

On 5/17/07, Andrew Plewe <aplewe at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> A087839 and A106742
> http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=id:A087839|id:A106742

Look the same to me -- they are the same as long as the pattern
continues, but it wasn't obvious to me how the multiply-recursive
definition leads to the pattern (of three 3s, four 4s, etc, etc).

Hm, the offset seems wrong, too.  Should be offset 1 for both
sequences (A106742 has offset 0, but that doesn't match the given
formula).

And wow, they are NOT the same after all!  They first deviate at n =
233 where A106742 gives 22 while A087839 gives 23.  At least that's
what my program says ...

Andrew, have you been going back to all these sequences discussed here
and inserting relevant comments?  It would be nice to spare future
duplicate-hunters this question (and also it would be nice for someone
who searched and found these two sequences to be able to figure out
which one might be theirs!)

> A076725 and A114951
> http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=id:A076725|id:A114951

Clearly the same (formula in A114951 is the same as the definition of A076725).

--Joshua Zucker



I haven't been submitting comments, choosing instead to just submit the
duplicates to the list so that all discussion about them is relatively easy
to follow/archive. I believe NJAS and other editors are adding such comments
to non-duplicates that aren't currently identified as such as they're
editing these entries. I have a record of all the sequences I've submitted,
double-check to see if they've been identified.

If I do this again in the future, I'll be sure to include links using the
new "or" search syntax in my processed duplicates file (maybe even
auto-generate an HTML file w/links); right now I copy-and-paste the actual
entries.


-----Original Message-----

On 5/17/07, Andrew Plewe <aplewe at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> A087839 and A106742
> http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=id:A087839|id:A106742

Look the same to me -- they are the same as long as the pattern
continues, but it wasn't obvious to me how the multiply-recursive
definition leads to the pattern (of three 3s, four 4s, etc, etc).

Hm, the offset seems wrong, too.  Should be offset 1 for both
formula).

And wow, they are NOT the same after all!  They first deviate at n =
233 where A106742 gives 22 while A087839 gives 23.  At least that's
what my program says ...

Andrew, have you been going back to all these sequences discussed here
and inserting relevant comments?  It would be nice to spare future
duplicate-hunters this question (and also it would be nice for someone
who searched and found these two sequences to be able to figure out
which one might be theirs!)

> A076725 and A114951
> http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=id:A076725|id:A114951

Clearly the same (formula in A114951 is the same as the definition of
A076725).

--Joshua Zucker