[seqfan] Re: Question on base keyword

Neil Sloane njasloane at gmail.com
Fri Mar 28 21:37:26 CET 2014


Yes, I agree it is base

I added the keyword!



On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:19 PM, <franktaw at netscape.net> wrote:

> There are a fair number of pairs of sequences like A106456 and A106455,
> where the first sequence contains patterns of 0's and 1's, and the second
> interprets them as binary numbers and converts them to decimal.
>
> It is pretty clear to me that the first of such pairs should  have the
> "base"keyword; even by the original narrow definition of the keyword. These
> would be different numbers (although the same numerals) in some other base.
>
> I'm not as certain about the second. By my definition, they should: at
> some point in their definition, they treat numbers as numerals. I don't
> want to go ahead and submit lots of changes for these without a consensus,
> however.
>
> So, do people think A106455 and its ilk should or should not have the
> "base" keyword?
>
> Franklin T. Adams-Watters
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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



More information about the SeqFan mailing list