[seqfan] Re: Correcting A002932 (n-step walks on square lattice)

[Rainer Rosenthal]

Hello Joseph,

"error-prone for higher-order terms" reminds me of my encounter
with polynomios. I came to think about them while playing the
game "Blokus" and tried to enumerate higher order terms of the
sequence of their numbers. It was funny to see them getting more
and more complicated and forming shapes I never had dreamed of :-)

Quite naturally, as an OEIS-Fan, I came across your name and saw
how much time and energy you had invested over a long time so far.
Well, it was quite an episode and my "polynomio fever" has cooled
down completely. But I enjoyed this pastime and even the struggle
against those unforeseen faults in my enumeration, which can be
well described by "error-prone for higher-order terms" :-)

Cheers,
Rainer


Am 22.11.2010 17:16, schrieb Joseph S. Myers:
> Unfortunately I don't think I'm licensed to redistribute the article 
> electronically.  But I don't see any sign of the lattice being bounded.  
> The article describes quite a complicated method of calculating the terms 
> (starting from recurrences for paths where only local self-intersections / 
> nearest-neighbour contacts are forbidden, then subtracting terms for when 
> these occur at a greater distance along the path) which could well be 
> error-prone for higher-order terms.
>