[seqfan] Re: %N A093086:some confusion(?)

[zak seidov]

The similar remark about "previous terms" may (or may not ;-)) be applied
 to the next sequences (mostly by Bodo Zinser):

A093087
A093088  
A093089 
A093091  
A093092
A093093              
A093094 
A093099
A093100    
A102761 



----- Original Message ----
From: Maximilian Hasler <maximilian.hasler at gmail.com>
To: N. J. A. Sloane <njas at research.att.com>; Zakir Seidov <zakseidov at yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 11:51:02 AM
Subject: Re: [seqfan] Re: %N A093086:some confusion(?)

The word "previous" in the %N does not make sense, IMO.

"next" would make some more sense,

or something involving "subsequent pair of adjacent / consecutive terms".


Maximilian


On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:06 AM, N. J. A. Sloane <njas at research.att.com> wrote:
> Zak,  yes, the example is confusing and I will change it
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>