[seqfan] Re: A279000 and A279001

[Arie Groeneveld]

A279194 and A279195are outputs of the python program but differ from the 
next sequences.
A279000 and A279001 are according the form in the title. But I don't see 
them mentioned in the paper or I missed them.

AFAICS A278996, A278997, A278998, and A278999 are indeed outputs of 
Apwen.py for arguments 3 and 5 or generated by the forms in the titles.

So the only question for me is: where are A279000 and A279001 mentioned 
in the arVix paper.


Op 15-12-16 om 18:16 schreef Neil Sloane:
> There are now four sequences:
> A279000 and A279001, which Lars Blomberg has corrected, and
> A279194 and A279195, which are the sequences J and K on page 10
> of the arXiv paper, but whose definitions are not clear to me.
>
> Arie Groeneveld, can you give me definitions for A279194 and A279195?
>
> And what about the earlier sequences that I added: A278996, A278997,
> A278998, and A278999. Are they OK?  Now I am worried!
>
>
> 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 Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Arie Groeneveld <agroeneveld400 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 not found?).
>>
>> 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/
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/