[seqfan] Re: Name and Entries for A059270

[Charles Greathouse]

Sorry, I must have misread the offset or something!

Charles Greathouse
Analyst/Programmer
Case Western Reserve University


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:19 PM, <franktaw at netscape.net> wrote:

> I don't see why 0 should be omitted with the current definition. It is the
> sum of 1 consecutive integers: 0, and of the 0 integers that follow it
> (since the sum of an empty sequence is zero).
>
> Franklin T. Adams-Watters
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Greathouse <charles.greathouse at case.edu>
> To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
> Sent: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 9:12 pm
> Subject: [seqfan] Re: Name and Entries for A059270
>
>
> Good suggestion. I think the formula would be a good name for A059270, with
> the current name as a comment: "Apart from the first term, ...".
>
> Charles Greathouse
> Analyst/Programmer
> Case Western Reserve University
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:04 PM, <charliemath at optonline.net> wrote:
>
>  SeqFans,
>>
>> Since the name of A057290, 0, 3, 15, 42, ..., is “Numbers which are
>>
> both
>
>> the sum of n+1 consecutive integers and the sum of the n immediately
>>
> higher
>
>> consecutive integers,” would it not be more accurate to omit 0 from
>>
> the
>
>> sequence?
>>
>>     Alternatively, since first entry of A059270 is 0, would it not be
>>
> more
>
>> accurate for its name to be a formula like “n*(n+1)*(2*n+1)/2”?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>