[seqfan] A152824, A152852, A152853, Re: Re: Subset of A152824

[f.firoozbakht at sci.ui.ac.ir]

Dear Neil, Joshua Zucker, Robert G. Wilson v, Zak Seidov , Pierre CAMI,
Jon E. Schoenfield and seqfans,

A152824:
223, 289, 337, 379, 433, 469, 477, 649, 673, 2227, 2233, 2263, 2269, 2323,
2437, 2449, 2623, 2629, 2773, 2833, 3223, 3277, 3349, 3433, 3493, 3889, 4249,
4333, 4393, 4429, 4633, 4873, 4933, 4969, 6223, 6229, 6433, 6637, 6679, 6763,
6949, 7267, 7477, 7939

A152852:
289, 379, 386, 469, 649, 673, 674, 869, 938, 2437, 4873, 23689, 24697, 27469,
28369, 32689, 36289, 36794, 42673, 46873, 47629, 62497, 62749, 63289, 68329,
79634, 82369, 84673, 86329, 93746, 348769, 364897, 376489, 487369, 673849,
684937, 689473, 736849, 837649, 843697

A152853:
337, 737, 7373, 73333, 73733, 333377, 333733, 737333, 737773, 777337, 777737,
3333373, 3333773, 3373337, 3373777, 3777377, 3777733, 7337737, 7373333,
7373773, 7733377, 7733777, 7777373, 33337333, 33337733, 33377737, 33733373


As I wrote before the current terms of the sequence A152824 aren't correct.
Because, if they are correct then :

1.  A152852 isn't a subsequence of A152824, because 386, 674, 869 and 938 are
in A152852 but they aren't in A152824.

2. A152853 isn't a subsequence of A152824, because 737 & 7373 are in A152852
but they aren't in A152824.

I think the terms (less than 1000) of A152824 are :

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 22, 24, 33, 36, 44, 48, 55, 66,
77, 88, 99, 111, 112, 115, 122, 124, 126, 128, 132, 135, 144, 155, 162,
168, 175,184, 212, 216, 222, 223, 224, 244, 248, 264, 288, 289, 312, 315,
324, 333, 336, 337, 338, 366, 379, 384, 386, 396, 412, 424, 432, 433, 434,
444, 446, 448, 469, 477, 488, 515, 555, 612, 624, 636, 648, 649, 666, 669,
672, 673, 674, 676, 677, 728, 735, 737, 777, 784, 787, 788, 816, 824, 848,
864, 866, 868, 869, 888, 936, 938, 999.

Am I right?


Farideh


Quoting Joshua Zucker <joshua.zucker at gmail.com>:

> All same nonzero remainder is what the author suggested when I checked
> with him, so no 1s or 2s in the numbers, but my terms are not the only
> ones either.
>
> I will generate the correct list and submit it shortly.
>
> If you are interested, Farideh, you could submit these other two sequences.
>
> Thanks,
> --Joshua
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:19 AM,  <f.firoozbakht at sci.ui.ac.ir> wrote:
>>
>> According to the current definition terms of the sequence up to 1000
>> are:
>>
>> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 22, 24, 33, 36, 44, 48, 55, 66, 77,
>> 88, 99, 111, 112, 115, 122, 124, 126, 128, 132, 135, 144, 155, 162,
>> 168, 175,184, 212, 216, 222, 223, 224, 244, 248, 264, 288, 289, 312,
>> 315, 324,
>> 333, 336, 337, 338, 366, 379, 384, 386, 396, 412, 424, 432, 433, 434, 444,
>> 446, 448, 469, 477, 488, 515, 555, 612, 624, 636, 648, 649, 666, 669, 672,
>> 673, 674, 676, 677, 728, 735, 737, 777, 784, 787, 788, 816, 824, 848, 864,
>> 866, 868, 869, 888, 936, 938, 999.
>>
>> But if we change the definition as I wrote before the terms up to 8000 are:
>>
>> 223, 289, 337, 379, 433, 469, 477, 649, 673, 2227, 2233, 2263, 2269, 2323,
>> 2437, 2449, 2623, 2629, 2773, 2833, 3223, 3277, 3349, 3433, 3493,   
>> 3889, 4249,
>> 4333, 4393, 4429, 4633, 4873, 4933, 4969, 6223, 6229, 6433, 6637,   
>> 6679, 6763,
>> 6949, 7267, 7477, 7939.
>>
>>
>> Farideh
>>
>>
>> Quoting Joshua Zucker <joshua.zucker at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Thanks as always to everyone for the polite, friendly, and helpful
>>> hints, suggestions, and corrections.
>>>
>>> In particular:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 4:50 AM,  <f.firoozbakht at sci.ui.ac.ir> wrote:
>>>> I think definition of the sequence A152824 according to the
>>>> first five terms isn't correct.
>>>> A better definition: Numbers n such that the remainder of n when dividing
>>>> by each digits of n is equal to one.
>>>
>>> Uh oh!  Should 338 be in the sequence or not?
>>>
>>> If it should be in the sequence then I need to do a little revision of
>>> my program.
>>>
>>> I suppose I should ask the original author what the intent was, and
>>> that's what I'll go do now.
>>>
>>> I personally don't find it interesting enough to think that both
>>> sequences, the one beginning 223 289 337 338 379 386 433 434 446 469
>>> 477 649 669 673 674 676 677 737 787 788 866 868 869 938 and the one
>>> beginning 223 289 337 379 433 469 477 649 673, need to be in OEIS, but
>>> if someone else disagrees I'm happy to submit whichever one the author
>>> didn't intend.  (Probably it's best to direct such emails to me rather
>>> than further cluttering the list.)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --Joshua Zucker








----------------------------------------------------------------
University of Isfahan (http://www.ui.ac.ir)