# [seqfan] Re: A004143 From the powers that be

Neil Sloane njasloane at gmail.com
Mon Dec 21 20:03:16 CET 2015

```Sean, you could ask Roger E., the first author,
Email   roger.eggleton at newcastle.edu.au
(The other two authors would be harder to reach)

If the published values do turn out to be wrong, best thing is to create a
new sequence for the *bad *values, with name "Erroneous version of A004143"
, giving the Monthly reference,
and then correcting the old version

Please let me know what you find out

Best regards
Neil

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

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sean A. Irvine <sairvin at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have been trying to reproduce A004143.  Since it is the festive season,
> perhaps looking at this sequence titled "From the powers that be" is
> appropriate :-)
>
> I think the offset for this sequence is wrong, the first term should be
> a(1)=0, rather than a(2)=0.  The sequence of values that I get is,
>
> 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 40, 40, 105, 5627, 14501, 330861, 658110, 897229.
>
> This differs from the existing values in that I have a(8) = 105 rather than
> the 106 given in the OEIS and in Eggleton et al. paper.  My chain of powers
> for this case runs:
>
> 2^105 > 3^66 > 5^45 > 7^37 > 11^30 > 13^28 > 17^25 > 19^24,
>
> with each power satisfying p_i^{m_i} <= 2^105 < p_i^{m_i+1}.
>
> Since this is an old sequence, I would quite like an independent
> verification of this before modifying the entry.
>
> Regards,
> Sean.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>
```