[seqfan] Re: My first base-10 related question here, I think
franktaw at netscape.net
franktaw at netscape.net
Fri Jun 26 21:45:33 CEST 2009
Yes. Any time a sequence is pulling numbers out of a sequence of
digits that includes zeros, there should be a comment (or part of the
definition) specifying what is being done with zeros.
There are two main choices: allow terms to start with zero (as here),
or don't permit a digit preceding a zero to mark the end of an
extracted number. There are examples in the database doing it both
ways.
Incidentally, it would be good to have a cross-reference from A074721
to A069090. Does every member of A069090 occur in A074721?
(I am sending in more terms and a b-file for A069090.)
Franklin T. Adams-Watters
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Havermann <pxp at rogers.com>
...
I just want to bring up something that is not necessarily a problem
for this sequence but I'd like someone's opinion on it regardless.
When the primes 691, 701, 709, and 719 get concatenated and digitized,
we end up with: {..., 6, 9, 1, 7, 0, 1, 7, 0, 9, 7, 1, 9, ...}. These
will end up in A074721 as terms #98 - #102: {691, 7, 17, 97, 19}.
Terms #100 & #101 have associated with them *unstated* leading zeros.
This makes it difficult to construct the concatenated primes from just
the sequence terms. Perhaps a comment to that effect might alert the
unwary. The alternative would be to complicate the definition of the
sequence to exclude leading zeros from existing, not the best solution.
More information about the SeqFan
mailing list