[seqfan] Re: A036967

[Harvey P. Dale]

	Aha!  Thanks, Doug.
	Best,
	Harvey
 

-----Original Message-----
From: seqfan-bounces at list.seqfan.eu [mailto:seqfan-bounces at list.seqfan.eu] On Behalf Of D. S. McNeil
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 5:39 PM
To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list
Subject: [seqfan] Re: A036967

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.


Doug

_______________________________________________

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