[seqfan] : About A164003 and A164004.

[Omar E. Pol]

>Charles Greathouse wrote
>Any thoughts about A164003?
>

The original sequence A164003 was only 13 terms. When I wrote this sequence  
I notice that A164003 could be the same as A005563. Then I wrote a comment   
saying: "This sequence should be compared to A005563!". Then the sequence was 
extended beyond a (12) by R. J. Mathar. Currently I think that A164003 should 
be deleted. 
On the other hand, I think the sequence A164004 should remain in the OEIS 
because it is a different sequence from A028552.

Best regards 
Omar E. Pol