[seqfan] Re: Strictly non-pandigital numbers

[franktaw at netscape.net]

It might be enough to prove that, but don't hold your breath.  Problems 
of this sort are notoriously intractable.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Alonso Del Arte <alonso.delarte at gmail.com>
To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
Sent: Thu, Dec 10, 2009 4:12 pm
Subject: [seqfan]  Strictly non-pandigital numbers


Just wondering if anyone has studied strictly non-pandigital numbers
(analogous to strictly non-palindromic numbers).

Obviously they must be Mersenne numbers. 1, 3, 7, 31, 255, fit the 
bill. An
OEIS search gives just A063896, 2^Fibonacci(n) - 1.  The next term 
given by
that sequence is 8191, which is pandigital in base 3.

If the sequence of strictly non-pandigital numbers is finite, it might 
be
enough to prove that Mersenne numbers greater than 255 are always 
pandigital
in base 3.