[seqfan] Re: A159559

[Leroy Quet]

I see your point. And it is a good one. But there is an argument that it is often, but probably not nearly always, a good idea to include the extra starting terms of sequence, if they exist, in case someone searches for a sequence and their search starts with the extraneous term(s) (2, in the case of your sequence). A note can always be added that the first term is an exception.

Thanks,
Leroy Quet


[ ( [ ([( [ ( ([[o0Oo0Ooo0Oo(0)oO0ooO0oO0o]]) ) ] )]) ] ) ]


--- On Thu, 7/30/09, Alexander Povolotsky <apovolot at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Alexander Povolotsky <apovolot at gmail.com>
> Subject: [seqfan] Re: A159559
> To: seqfan at list.seqfan.eu
> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 3:00 PM
> FYI  - sequence's author opinion
> ...
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Vladimir Shevelev <shevelev at bgu.ac.il>
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:43:39 GMT
> Subject: Re: OEIS Fan's discussion re A159559
> To: Alexander Povolotsky <apovolot at gmail.com>
> 
> Very thanks.
> 
> In my opinion,  the adding of a(1)=2 is not correct in
> principle since
> contradicts to the main idea:
> the behavior of the sequence repeats the behavior of the
> positive
> integers with respect to the property: to be or not to be
> prime;
> therefore, we begin from a(2)=3.
> 
> Vladimir
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alexander Povolotsky <apovolot at gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 0:51
> Subject: OEIS Fan's discussion re A159559
> To: shevelev at bgu.ac.il
> 
> > FYI - OEIS Fan's discussion re A159559
> > http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/2009-July/001957.html
> > http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/2009-July/001960.html
> > http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/2009-July/001962.html
> > http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/2009-July/001964.html
> >
> 
>  Shevelev Vladimir‎
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>