[seqfan] Re: A "dumb" "word" sequence inspired by a few recent discussions.

[Michael Porter]

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?

- Michael

--- 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.

Isaac

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Andrew Weimholt <andrew.weimholt at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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,
> 1001000000001000001001002568
>
> nonn, fini, full, word, dumb?
>
> Cf. A050933
>
> OEIS worthy?
>
> Andrew
>
> P.S.
> 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/