[seqfan] Re: Big Numbers in the Champernowne Continued Fraction Expansion
Alonso Del Arte
alonso.delarte at gmail.com
Tue Mar 30 23:11:44 CEST 2010
Does A038705(0) = 1 sound correct to you? I think any decision ought to take
into account your answer to that question. However, I haven't yet examined
Weisstein's Mathematica notebook on the constant.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Hans Havermann <pxp at rogers.com> wrote:
> Ten years ago next month, I was working on pulling large numbers out
> of the continued fraction expansion of the Champernowne constant. To
> wit, I submitted A038705: 2, 3, 5, 19, 41, 163, 527, 1709, 4839,
> 13523... Position of the incrementally largest term in continued
> fraction for Champernowne constant (A030167), noting in the extensions
> that "It is likely that the tenth term is 13523, but not certain,
> since the Champernowne term at that position has yet to be calculated."
> I notice now that on 4 September 2008, Mark Sofroniou confirmed that
> guess with an actual calculation. Eric W. Weisstein contributed on
> that day A143533: 0, 1, 2, 4, 18, 40, 162, 526, 1708, 4838, 13522...
> which is essentially a duplicate of my sequence, adding an initial
> zero, creating a zero-offset and thus reducing all my position values
> by one. I'll leave it to Neil or the OEIS editors to figure out what
> offset makes more sense and make necessary editorial alterations.
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan