EricD/About Sequences equal?

[Andrew Plewe]

When I did my duplicate hunting last year I skipped
over any set of duplicates that included crossrefs
and/or text that mentioned one was the same as the
other. I figured that those comments a.) were
sufficient to identify the duplication, and b.) there
may be a reason why the sequence was left in the
database. Anyways, I remember there being a good
number of these -- maybe on the order of 50 or 100
distinct sequences. Are those assumptions correct
(i.e., that those duplications have been left in the
database on purpose)?

    -Andrew Plewe-


--- Joshua Zucker <joshua.zucker at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, the initial two terms are different, but it
> sure is easy to
> prove that all terms thereafter will be the same.  I
> would certainly
> be in favor of deleting A084599 except it would be
> nice to save the
> bit of comment that says how big the composite is
> that would need
> factoring in order to compute the next term.
> 
> Interestingly,  A084598 has a comment saying it's
> essentially the same
> as A005265.  Maybe all that's needed is a comment in
> A084599 saying
> similarly that it's essentially the same as A005266.
> 
> By the way, Eric: you might get more responses to
> your list of
> sequences if you made an easy-to-click link that
> takes us to the
> sequences we should be comparing, saving us from
> typing the A-numbers
> in to a search, like this:
>
http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=id%3AA084598%7Cid%3AA005266
> where the %3A is the : character and the %7C is the
> | character.
> So at least in my browser,
>
http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=id:A084598|id:A005266
> also works.
> I have a feeling there's an even shorter format that
> works too ...
> 
> --Joshua Zucker
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Eric
> <moongerms at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > A084599 & A005266
> >
> >
> >
>