Semiprime analogue of A059316

[Richard Mathar]

sprbet := proc(m,withend)
        a := 0 ;
        if withend then
                strt := m ;
                en := 2*m ;
        else
                strt := m+1 ;
                en := 2*m-1 ;
        fi ;
        for i from strt to en do
                if numtheory[bigomega](i) = 2 then
                        a := a+1 ;
                fi ;
        od:
        RETURN(a) ;
        for m from 1 do
                b := sprbet(m,withend) ;
                if ( b =n and exa )  or b>=n and not exa then
                        RETURN(m) ;
                fi ;
                if m >= 1000 then
                        RETURN(-1) ;
                fi ;
        od:
seq(A(n,true,true),n=1..30) ;
seq(A(n,false,true),n=1..30) ;
seq(A(n,false,false),n=1..30) ;
seq(A(n,true,false),n=1..30) ;
Return-Path: <mathar at mail.strw.leidenuniv.nl>
X-Ids: 164
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:44:49 +0100
From: Richard Mathar <mathar at strw.leidenuniv.nl>
Message-Id: <200711282144.lASLin4S014128 at amer.strw.leidenuniv.nl>
To: seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr
Subject: o.g.f for linear homogeneous recurrences with constant coefficients for Maple
X-LeidenObservatory-MailScanner-Information: Processed through MailScanner at Leiden Observatory
X-LeidenObservatory-MailScanner: Virusscan: Found to be clean
X-LeidenObservatory-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam,
	SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-2.599, required 4.5,
	autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -2.60)
X-LeidenObservatory-MailScanner-From: mathar at mail.strw.leidenuniv.nl
X-Spam-Status: No
X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.164]); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:44:55 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.7/4947/Wed Nov 28 21:05:00 2007 on shiva.jussieu.fr
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 474DE156.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
office: Niels Bohrweg 2, 2333 CA Leiden, #456
Return-Path: <joshua.zucker at gmail.com>
X-Ids: 168
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        bh=9+SclB1ixpZJeQorMpw/yhpRk7Ug+xmESi70EceNmNY=;
        b=bPhCbdUcfJrAc5UnXj3Z4aEDjtcIVicCwzNaAYJJBVwgYD0LcEaBF3JtbByCzGSG4sJfbcaNvL1B01YM1MmwFY3Vcl5DtAdadZ1sIJ8VZ6ZUT3ydE2uxqwI5ZW1vo30k/8f+sFMekC8VuIVd0URyBxEwRTzjjMn8hV/08jwZdpM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=o9RWf/RwQxBHOcO1dneLT4Yw+gD8wN98KN2fZU3BBXjH/1gnBRQcMrV8nx1Lc8qJGwJlUnugbJGGdN+9AIbeyDMP2pM5AnBxI+0hGQBl6fKoF4O2QgEA+/AymVUqipjAM2L8T819BKnixIAOW5E+IGOv3spMxT52X26qVf8DRR4=
Message-ID: <721e81490711281351g5ac5ce5ck17f63421dbed2e55 at mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:51:07 -0800
From: "Joshua Zucker" <joshua.zucker at gmail.com>
To: grafix at csl.pl
Subject: Re: Duplicates?
Cc: seqfan <seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr>
In-Reply-To: <474DB413.2070002 at csl.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <474DB413.2070002 at csl.pl>
X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.168]); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:51:12 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.7/4946/Wed Nov 28 20:04:59 2007 on shiva.jussieu.fr
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 474DE2CF.001 on shiva.jussieu.fr : j-chkmail score : X : 0/50 1 0.415 -> 1
X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 474DE2CF.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!

No, one sequence is defined to exclude composite numbers, so it is
finite and ends with 97, while the other continues to include
composite numbers greater than 97.

I think it might be good practice -- but alternatively might be
against OEIS custom -- to add mention of things like that in the
cross-refs.  Which do you recommend?  Should A095862 say "Cf. A096489
is a version of this sequence that excludes composites" and A096489
say "Cf. A095862 is a version of this sequence that includes
composites" or something like that? Or is that kind of thing better
for the comments?

--Joshua Zucker

On Nov 28, 2007 10:31 AM, Artur <grafix at csl.pl> wrote:
> Does A095862 <http://www.research.att.com/%7Enjas/sequences/A095862>
> that same as A096489
> <http://www.research.att.com/%7Enjas/sequences/A096489> ? ARTUR
>
>
>