[seqfan] Re: A007496 = A108942: 2^n & 5^n have no zero digit
ic_designer at verizon.net
Mon Oct 19 07:07:02 CEST 2009
I agree - just add 0 to the sequence rather than changing the description to artificially exclude 0. I would also move all the analysis and references and make A108942 just a "duplicate of" sequence.
--- On Sun, 10/18/09, Maximilian Hasler <maximilian.hasler at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Maximilian Hasler <maximilian.hasler at gmail.com>
Subject: [seqfan] A007496 = A108942: 2^n & 5^n have no zero digit
To: "Sequence Fanatics Discussion list" <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
Date: Sunday, October 18, 2009, 7:10 PM
Sequences A007496 and A108942 should be the same:
but 0 is missing in A007496.
Strange enough, neither of them references the other one.
I think it would be the best to add 0 in A007496,
rather than to modify artificially its definition in order to exclude 0,
even if I respect the fact that this is a "very old" sequence (M0497 !).
(I checked that this sequence is not referenced by any other sequence
in OEIS (neither is A108942), so the change in the indices resulting
in the addition of 0 should not affect any formula.)
If there are other / better suggestions, please go ahead.
PS: I intended to write "...gives END" instead of "...gives B" in my
previous mail, but after double-checking it seems that it should read
"...gives START"... sorry for the bad (non-)solution.
list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan