[seqfan] Re: sequence without proof

[Christian Lawson-Perfect]

Would it be possible to check this kind of thing automatically as part of
the new sequence submission process?

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, 03:59 Neil Sloane, <njasloane at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=11+South+Adelaide+Avenue,+Highland+Park,+NJ+08904,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g>
> .
> 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/
> >
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>