[seqfan] Re: A058055

[franktaw at netscape.net]

It looks to me like the terms are wrong.

The offset is definitely wrong; it should be 1, not 0.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Harvey P. Dale <hpd1 at nyu.edu>

	There's something I don't understand about the above sequence.
As I generate terms corresponding to the definition, they are quite
different from those shown in the OEIS.  For example (from the example
given), 97+2^2 = 101 which is prime, so m could be 2 rather than 2144.
And even if we constrain m to be greater than n, 97+102^2 = 10501 which
is prime, so m could be 102 rather than 2144.  If someone can clarify
this for me, I'll be glad to correct either the definition or the terms
of the sequence.
	Thanks.
	Best,
	Harvey


_______________________________________________

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