Why isn't 0 in A034710?

[David Wilson]

Honestly, I don't think we need another policy to ignore, especially since I 
can't this one being implemented retroactively on 100000+ sequences. I was 
just telling people what I do, which seems to work for me, and I felt was a 
rather clever way to deal with optional/questionable 0's in certain 
sequences.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Max Alekseyev" <maxale at gmail.com>
To: "David Wilson" <davidwwilson at comcast.net>
Cc: "Sequence Fans" <seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr>; "Neil J. A. Sloane" 
<njas at research.att.com>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Why isn't 0 in A034710?


> On 9/21/07, David Wilson <davidwwilson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > Even having 0 in the sequence shouldn't change
>> > the offset to 0. As many other sequences representing certain subsets
>> > of the integers, it should have the offset 1.
>>
>> [My explanation of how I deal with 0's at the head of certain sequences.]
>
> [This may not work for everyone. NJAS should adopt a policy.]
>
> Regards,
> Max