[seqfan] Re: more on double factorials/Penson

[franktaw at aim.com]

It seems to me that it would be more confusing not to have the words 
"double factorial" on these sequences.  If you wanted to say "bisection 
of double factorial numbers" instead of just "double factorial 
numbers", I would have no problem with that.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Karol PENSON <penson at lptl.jussieu.fr>


Dear Seqfans,
I am trying to clarify a little mess stirred by my remark. From what we
see below  the ::::::::: line
   A) the only sequence which  really deserves the name "double 
factorial
numbers " is A006882.
      In this sequence a line should be added
  which links it to the doublefactorial function of  Maple, i.e.
A006882(n)=doublefactorial(n). This
  line is conspicuously  absent from  A006882.
B)  I propose , to avoid any confusion , not to use the term "double
factorial numbers" in referring to
     A001147,   to  A000165 and to A001818, or rather to use the term
"subsequence of A006882" or
    "bisection of  A006882", (Neil , could you decide ?) .
Thanks  to Richard Mathar and Maximilian  Hasler for constructive
observations and remarks ,
    best,

Karol A. Penson
=