[seqfan] Re: Offsets of Large Integers Decomposed into Decimal Digits

[Neil Sloane]

> For example, the decimal expansion of 3^3^3^3 <https://oeis.org/A241292 >
is given a huge offset equal to the number of decimal digits in the
integer. Doesn't it make more sense to see the expansion as a finite *list*
of digits with offset 1?

OK, as long as you are just talking about large /integers/, that
seems like a reasonable suggestion.

Neil


On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Hans Havermann <gladhobo at teksavvy.com>
wrote:

> On Jun 15, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Neil Sloane <njasloane at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Hans, I understand your point...
>
> I'm not sure that you do. All of your examples are non-integers. I don't
> have a problem with the offsets of those. Integers are constants of a
> different kind: They can be decomposed in two ways: left-to-right and
> right-to-left. Suppose someone wanted to contribute the decimal digits of a
> large number like 9^9^9^9^9. They couldn't do it left-to-right because we
> can't calculate the first few digits of that expansion. But we can describe
> this number right-to-left: the units digit, the tens digit, the hundreds
> digit, etc. Now, think about this sequence. It's not a constant. It doesn't
> end in a decimal point. It's just a finite list of digits with offset 1.
> Why should the left-to-right description of a large integer be seen as
> fundamentally different than the right-to-left description?
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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.
Also Visiting Scientist, Math. Dept., Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.
Phone: 732 828 6098; home page: http://NeilSloane.com
Email: njasloane at gmail.com