[seqfan] Re: A081458

[Neil Sloane]

Bob is right that the numbers should be sorted.
But I can't see any reason for restricting m to be less than n.
Probably the best solution is to use as the
new definition "Numbers of the form (3^(2n) + 5^(2m))/2"

Neil

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Robert G. Wilson v <rgwv at rgwv.com> wrote:

> Seq.Fans,
>
>         Like Harvey, I find this sequence troubling at many levels.
>
>         First, why is the sequence not sorted.
>
>         Second, no term is present where the exponent of 3 exceed that of
> 5.
>
>         Therefore, I suggest that to get as close to what is presented, the
> follow:
>
> Name: Numbers of the form (3^(2n) + 5^(2m))/2 where m is less than or equal
> to n.
> data: 1, 13, 17, 313, 317, 353, 7813, 7817, 7853, 8177, 195313, 195317,
> 195353, 195677, 198593, 4882813, 4882817, 4882853, 4883177, 4886093,
> 4912337, 122070313, 122070317, 122070353, 122070677, 122073593, 122099837,
> 122336033, 3051757813, 3051757817, 3051757853, 3051758177, ., .
> Mmca: Take[ Union[ Flatten[ Table[ (3^m + 5^n)/2, {n, 0, 14, 2}, {m, 0, n,
> 2}]]], 32]
>
> Sincerely, Bob.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SeqFan [mailto:seqfan-bounces at list.seqfan.eu] On Behalf Of Harvey P.
> Dale
> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 1:27 PM
> To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list
> Subject: [seqfan] A081458
>
>         The first formula does not generate the terms of the sequence.
>         Happy New Year.
>         Best,
>         Harvey
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>



-- 
Dear Friends, I have now retired from AT&T. New coordinates:

Neil J. A. Sloane, President, OEIS Foundation
11 South Adelaide Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904, USA
Phone: 732 828 6098; home page: http://NeilSloane.com
Email: njasloane at gmail.com