A140731 and A140732 are the same sequence

[franktaw at netscape.net]

Perhaps the original intention was to have the first of each pair in
A140731 and the second in A140732.  Even if it wasn't, it would
seem more consistent to do it that way.

There is an ambiguity here: is the sequence supposed to stop
when you reach 420, or do we continue with the reversed pairs
until each has been included twice?

In any event, it seems like this sequence violates the rule against
sequences depending on large, arbitrary constants.

And why on earth is there a cross-ref to the Fibonaccis?

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Povolotsky <apovolot at gmail.com>

A140731 and A140732 are the same sequence  ...



I have removed the duplicate entry, and cleaned up that whole batch.
I agree they are quite unsatisfactory and have marked them as "less"

New version of OEIS in a few hours.