[seqfan] Re: A050279 and A096764 identical?
felix.froe at gmail.com
Sun Sep 3 16:23:54 CEST 2017
Okay, thanks for the adjustment.
2017-09-03 14:52 GMT+02:00 Neil Sloane <njasloane at gmail.com>:
> I edited those two: A050279 is now "at least", A096764 is "exactly".
> Best regards
> 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".
> >> 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
> >> 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/
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan