[seqfan] Re: A051264 == A050278 ?
davidwwilson at comcast.net
Mon Jan 9 13:53:13 CET 2012
I think your "exactly" interpretation is the correct one, otherwise
A051264 would coincide numerically with either A050278 or A171102 in the
OEIS, which it does not starting at its first term. I would not expect
such a mistake from the author.
Given the "exactly" interpretation, the MathWorld claim that there
exists a k-persistent number exists for each k becomes interesting and
begs both a proof and an OEIS sequence of the smallest k-persistent
number for each k.
On 1/9/2012 3:22 AM, franktaw at netscape.net wrote:
> From the definitions, A051264 should be the same as A171102, not A050278.
> However, it appears that n-persistent is being used in a slightly
> different way from what the MathWorld article defines. It seems that
> it is being used to mean that the number is n-persistent as defined
> but not (n+1)-persistent - one could perhaps call this exactly
> n-persistent. Based on that, A051264 is different from the other two
> Certainly the definitions need to be clarified. The other sequences
> referenced in the MathWorld article also appear to be defined in this
> Franklin T. Adams-Watters
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moshe Levin <moshe.levin at mail.ru>
> Shouldn't A051264 (1 - persistent numbers)
> coincide with A050278 (Pandigital numbers)?
> My friend wrote to the author (of both seqs), in vail,
> and asked me.
> I think that A051264 == A050278 by definition.
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan