[seqfan] Re: sequence without proof

[Neil Sloane]

JS, I didn't follow your definition of
1, 4, 7, 10, 15, 18, 23, 29, 35, 40, 47, 54, 60, 68, 75, 83, 90, 99,.
but it seems to be in the OEIS already - see A274383

I do wish people would remember the rule: always omit the first couple of
terms when checking to see if your sequence is new!

I have to spend a lot time merging duplicates and removing b-files because
even regular users don't do this.  You know who you are!


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 Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 7:13 PM, jnthn stdhr <jstdhr at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 22, 2017 12:30 PM, "jnthn stdhr" <jstdhr at gmail.com> wrote:
>    ...my program starts with k = 1 and increments k by one when T(b, k+1) >
> T(a,k), b > a.
>
> I mean T(n, k+1) > T(n, k).
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>