# [seqfan] Re: A279000 and A279001

Arie Groeneveld agroeneveld400 at gmail.com
Thu Dec 15 17:00:42 CET 2016

```Examining the article, this is what I read:

The numbers mentioned in para 2.3 are the output of program Apwen.py for
argument 11 (function F11(x)) and not of the form:

(11*h+j)*11^k-1 for h,k in N and j in {1,3,4,5,9} or {2,6,7,8,10}

One can check this by running the Python program.

At preceding para's 2.1 and 2.2 alternative expressions (not only
different in values 3 and 5but also in sets for j) are shown for
functions F3(x) and F5(x), which are outputs of Apwen.py 3 and Apwen.py
5p. In para 2.3 no such expression is shown for the two sequences (is it

So if one refers to the article for both sequences the titles are wrong.

Thanks

Op 15-12-16 om 08:33 schreef Lars Blomberg:
>
> The names seem to be wrong.
>
> Using the given formulas, the data is not reproduced and the two sequences
> are not each others complement.
>
> Refer to section 2.3 in the paper.
>
> Although not explicitly stated there, I guess that 5 in the formulas should
> be replaced by 11.
>
> Now A279000 and A279001 are complements of each other.
>
> But still, it seems that some values in the paper have been placed in the
> wrong sequence:
>
> A279001 contains 10 = (11*0+1)*11^1-1 that belongs to A279000 with
> (h,j,k)=(0,1,1).
>
> A279000 contains 21 = (11*0+2)*11^1-1 that belongs to A279001 with
> (h,j,k)=(0,2,1).
>
> A279001 contains 32 = (11*0+3)*11^1-1 that belongs to A279000 with
> (h,j,k)=(0,3,1).
>
>
>
> /Lars Blomberg
>
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/

```