[seqfan] Re: A050279 and A096764 identical?

Neil Sloane njasloane at gmail.com
Sun Sep 3 14:52:26 CEST 2017


I edited those two: A050279 is now "at least", A096764 is "exactly".

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, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:51 AM, <israel at math.ubc.ca> wrote:

> Yes: one of these should be "at least n zeros" and the other "exactly n
> zeros", but from the current Names it's not clear which is which.
>
> Cheers,
> Robert
>
>
> On Sep 2 2017, Felix Fröhlich wrote:
>
> Dear SeqFans,
>>
>> the comment in A096764 says the two sequences "will eventually differ". I
>> do not understand why that would be the case, as both sequences
>> essentially
>> have the same definition. Does this refer to the comment of M. F. Hasler
>> in
>> A050279? If so, then I think the definition of A096764 should be adjusted.
>> Otherwise, A096764 seems to be a duplicate of A050279.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Felix Fröhlich
>>
>> --
>> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>


More information about the SeqFan mailing list