[seqfan] Re: Digits concatenation

[franktaw at netscape.net]

We can also consider a variant, to me more natural, where we rearrange 
the numbers 1..n, instead of rearranging the digits of those numbers. 
This doesn't make any difference for n < 10, of course. (It also means 
you don't have to include "leading zeros not permitted" in the 
definition.)

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Paolo Lava <paoloplava at gmail.com>

Maximilian & Harvey

Yes, you are right. Let us say that I should add to the 
definition:"...that
minimize the ratio x/y, being x/y integer and greater than zero (leading
zeros not admitted)".
This sounds good for the sequence starting with a(1)=1 but for the other
I'd add a(1)=0.

Best

Paolo

2011/11/10 Harvey P. Dale <hpd1 at nyu.edu>

>        Indeed, if zero is ever permitted in the numerator all terms 
will
> end up being zero, won't they?
>         Harvey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maximilian.hasler at gmail.com 
[mailto:maximilian.hasler at gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Maximilian Hasler
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:12 AM
> To: paoloplava at gmail.com; Claudio Meller
> Cc: Harvey P. Dale
> Subject: Re: [seqfan] Re: Digits concatenation
>
> > with 0:
> >
> > a(6)= 304/152=2, a(7)= 1046/523=2, a(8)= 10352/647=16, a(9)=
> > 10476/5328=2
>
> But  a(n) = 0/123...n  is a smaller solution, that seems to be valid 
in
> view of your example a(1),
>
> >> If we start from a(0)=0 we have a(1)=0 (0/1), a(2)=5 (10/2), 
a(3)=34
>
> Maximilian
>

_______________________________________________

Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/