[seqfan] Re: polyotessamino defn in A059573

[Neil Sloane]

Peter M., Richard M., Would one of you please add some comments to A059573
saying that the entries ***  appear to be wrong

And possibly say what the corrected sequence should be?

In fact, maybe the best thing is to create a new sequence for the correct
numbers, and then say that A059573 appears to be an incorrect version of
[the new sequence]


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 Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:37 AM Peter Munn <techsubs at pearceneptune.co.uk>
wrote:

> On Fri, May 24, 2019 6:03 pm, Richard J. Mathar wrote:
> > pm> Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 07:17:13 +0100
> > pm> From: "Peter Munn" <techsubs at pearceneptune.co.uk>
> > pm>
> > pm> I get 8 if the definition means that you cannot use only
> > pm> 1 domino if there is a configuration with 2 dominoes, and
> > pm> you fix the 4-omino in position and count different ways
> > pm> of placing the dominoes.
> [...]
> > This explains why A059573(4,2)=8, but then I get A0539537(5,2)=35,
> > not 34. For the illustration see
> > http://www.mpia.de/home/mathar/progs/a059573.pdf
>
> I calculated A059573(5,2) without looking at your illustration and concur
> that it would be 35 by my reverse-engineered definition; but I agree with
> the published A059573(5,3) = 18 and the rest of the row.
>
> > Is A059573 just not correct ?
>
> I currently suspect that a hand calculation overlooked a configuration, or
> maybe a transcription error 18 years ago. Has anyone tried re-calculating
> the values for A059573(6,2) or A059573(6,3) yet? I agree with the other
> published values on row 6.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>