[seqfan] Re: [OEIS-editors] Re: A020639

[Robert Munafo]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:10 PM, David Wilson <davidwwilson at comcast.net> wrote:
> If I have brought up this issue before, forgive me, but...
>
> I propose to remove a(1) = 1 from A006530 and A020639 (and references thereto in comments and b-files).
> 1 has no prime factors, therefore no greatest or least prime factor.

That will not happen.

Both sequences are explicitly defined to include an a(1)=1 term. This
is similar to the definition of "n^0", where you have to explicitly
state that a(0)=0^0=1.

Furthermore, A6530 was published in the 1995 book and is heavily
referenced by others. Use A111089, refer to both A111089 and A6530 in
your work, and stop whining about it!

A20639 is probably referenced a lot too. In this case the best you can
hope for is that you might add a new sequence, or prove the
conjectures in A92028 or A92067 (in which case one of those would
serve as the variant of A20639).

--
  Robert Munafo  --  mrob.com
  Follow me at: gplus.to/mrob - fb.com/mrob27 - twitter.com/mrob_27 -
mrob27.wordpress.com - youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com