[seqfan] Re: Is A109924 correct?

[franktaw at netscape.net]

-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Blomberg <lars.blomberg at visit.se>

>I thought "leading zero" referred to the palindrome, where 
>a(10) needs a leading 0 in order to be truly palindromic: 
>0,135444,949494,445310 
>and it is this leading zero that is suppressed. 

Yes. But, as far as being a palindrome,  this is exactly
the same as removing the trailing zeros: drop the
trailing zero and you have
135444,949494,44531.
 
>I still fail to see why 
>a(10) = 135444,949494,445310 is correct 
>and a(2) = 60 is not. 

As the sequence is defined, a(2) should be 60. It appears
that the terms are actually computed allowing only as many
leading/trailing zeros as the base concatenation has. I'm
not sure whether it would be better to change the values or
the definition. Perhaps change the definition, and add a
new sequence with the original definition.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters