[seqfan] Re: A027624 initial term

Frank Adams-Watters franktaw at netscape.net
Mon Feb 9 11:12:26 CET 2015

There's the fact that the formula in the definition evaluates to 1 for 
n = 0. Why do you think it should be 2?

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Weimholt <andrew.weimholt at gmail.com>
To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
Sent: Mon, Feb 9, 2015 3:29 am
Subject: [seqfan] A027624 initial term


I believe the first term of A027624 should be 2, not 1.

The history shows that Eric W. Weisstein was going to make such a
"correction" a while back, but then changed his mind and backed out the

Can anyone offer an explanation?



Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/


More information about the SeqFan mailing list