[seqfan] Re: A066411

[franktaw at netscape.net]

That may well be correct, buy I would like to see independent 
verification.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Heinz, Alois <alois.heinz at hs-heilbronn.de>

a(15)=158049is correct.

You can see that a(n)/a(n-1) goes up and down:

1., 3., 1.67, 4.60, 2.65, 2.34, 1.50, 4.63, 2.49, 2.33, 2.23, 2.27,
2.22, 2.22, 1.10

   +              A                 A
   +             AA                AA
   +             A A               AA
4 +             A A               A A
   +            A   A             A  AA
   +            A   A             A   A
   +            A    A            A   A
3 +     A      A    A           A     A
   +    AA     A      A          A     A
   +    A A    A      AAA        A      A
   +   A   A   A        AAAA    A       AAAAAA
   +   A   A  A             A   A             AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
2 +   A    A A             A   A                              A
   +  A      A               AAA                                A
   +  A                        A                                 A
   + A                                                            A
1 +AA                                                             A
   +
   +
   +
   +
   +-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-++-+-+-++-+-+-+-++-+-+-++-+-+-+-++-+-+-++-+-+-+-
0       2        4        6        8      10       12       14

There is no overflow in the program I used to compute a(15)=158049.

Alois

Am 24.01.2012 07:22, schrieb franktaw at netscape.net:
> The last published value of this sequence - a(15) - looks suspicious.
> For all previous n>1, a(n) / a(n-1) > 3/2; for this it is only about
> 1.1. I suspect that some kind of overflow occurred in the 
calculation,
> though I am by no means sure. Can someone check the value?
>
> Franklin T. Adams-Watters
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>