[seqfan] Re: A "dumb" "word" sequence inspired by a few recent discussions.
ic_designer at verizon.net
Tue Nov 17 23:09:16 CET 2009
To get the "dumb" keyword, it has to be really, really dumb, and I think this one is just a little too interesting.
It's curious that three letters are not contained in the American English name for any integer. Is that true of other languages?
--- On Mon, 11/16/09, Isaac <isaacthegreat at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Isaac <isaacthegreat at gmail.com>
Subject: [seqfan] Re: A "dumb" "word" sequence inspired by a few recent discussions.
To: "Sequence Fanatics Discussion list" <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
Date: Monday, November 16, 2009, 8:59 PM
I personally enjoy this sequence! You might want to crossreference A134629,
for it is very similar.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Andrew Weimholt <andrew.weimholt at gmail.com
> Sequences of this type may not be of interest mathematically, but can
> be fun to compute.
> a(n) = the smallest number whose American English name contains n
> distinct letters of the alphabet.
> 3 <= n <= 23
> 1, 0, 8, 13, 14, 25, 24, 74, 112, 127, 125, 165, 265, 1265, 2568, 12468,
> 1002568, 1001002568, 1000001001002568, 1000000001000001001002568,
> nonn, fini, full, word, dumb?
> Cf. A050933
> OEIS worthy?
> Note: in American English it is not proper to use the word "and" in
> the names of numbers.
> WRONG: "one hundred and one"
> RIGHT: "one hundred one"
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan