[seqfan] Re: A036967

D. S. McNeil dsm054 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 5 23:38:44 CEST 2012

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Harvey P. Dale <hpd1 at nyu.edu> wrote:
>            Is the definition of the above sequence sufficient?  If so,
> why aren't 48, 80, 96, 112, etc. terms of the sequence?

IIUC, the sequence consists of numbers n such that if a prime p
divides n then so does p^4.

3 divides 48 but 3^4=81 doesn't, so 48 isn't a member.


More information about the SeqFan mailing list