[seqfan] Re: nice base-dependent sequence

[Douglas McNeil]

I can confirm the terms up to 49.

> {50, 504316802 - not necessarily minimal!}
> {51-56, 507992408 -  not necessarily minimal!}

I agree they aren't (all) minimal.  I get

50 134316008
51 138756006

As for the "hard" keyword, I think I'm with Hans on this one.
Requiring evidence of computational complexity beyond some limit seems
narrower than OEIS custom.  Hard is already used for lots of sequences
where it's just that the best known approach is inefficient.


Doug

-- 
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Hong Kong