[seqfan] Re: A175043

[Michael Porter]

I would agree with Maximilian's comment (on the livejournal page) that the b=2..10 requirement is artificial and unnecessary.  What would the sequence look like if it were removed?

The choice of "11" as a substring also seems artificial to me.

But I think it's a valid idea for a sequence.  For the keywords used:
base: I would say yes, it does depend on the representation of the number in a particular base (or in this case multiple bases).  I suppose that if the b=2..10 requirement were removed that an argument could be made for not using "base".  I would tend to call it a "base" sequence, though.
fini: yes, as the sequence is defined, a(n) doesn't make sense for n>9, so it is a finite sequence
full: of course - all of the terms are there

I wouldn't say "nice" - sorry.  The arbitrary choice of substring "11" just doesn't sit well, and I could say the same for the range of bases.  I think I'm one of the people that discriminate against "base" sequences.

- Michael

--- On Sat, 11/14/09, zak seidov <zakseidov at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: zak seidov <zakseidov at yahoo.com>
Subject: [seqfan]  A175043
To: "seqfaneu" <seqfan at seqfan.eu>
Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 6:52 PM

1. Thanks to Frank (for ,dumb,) and Michael (for not_,dumb,) for replies about A175038/9.

2. Now I ask seqfans' opinions about A175043 
(not yet sent to OEIS, pending your +'s and -'s).

My Qs are:

2a. is it OK to tag it base, fini and full?
I mean that bases may be arbitrary large.
2b. What about similar sequences for bases up to, e.g., 16?
2c. isn't it 'nice'? ;-))

3. Thank you all and sorry before those sick enough with my_base_not_basic sequences.

Here is my draft of A175043:

http://zak08.livejournal.com/15644.html

4. I kindly invite interested people write to me personally (not to the whole list) or in my livejournal page.

5. Thanks, Zak





      


_______________________________________________

Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/