duplicate hunting, pt. 21

[Joshua Zucker]

On 5/30/07, Andrew Plewe <aplewe at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> A099094 and A099465 (sequences are the same as listed, are the terms
> correct?)
> http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=id:A099094|id:A099465

If the first few terms are as given for A099465 (and I see no
particular reason to start that recursion with 1 0 3 3 ...), then the
subsequent terms should be
1 0 3 3 12 9 45 36 171 135 648 513 2457 1944 9315 7371 35316 27945
133893 105948 507627 401679 1924560 1522881 7296561 5773680 27663363
21889683 104879772 82990089 397629405 314639316 1507527531 1192888215
5715470808 4522582593 21668995017 17146412424 82153397475 65006985051
311467177476 246460192425 1180861724853 934401532428 4476986706987
3542585174559 16973545295520 13430960120961 64351596007521
50920635886560

The terms of A099094 look good to me.

> A120664 and A120665
> http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=id:A120664|id:A120665

This sure looks like a case of the wrong terms being copied and pasted
in but I'm too lazy at the moment to recompute them and make sure of
that (or produce the correct terms).

--Joshua Zucker