[seqfan] Re: Question from Harvey Dale about A233552

[Hugo Pfoertner]

http://oeis.org/A233551 shows a similar deficiency, i.e., there are
candidate terms missing in the sequence passing a test deliberately
truncated at k=10000
2495, 3419, 3719, 5459, 5837,....
One could modify the definition of A233551 and A233552 by introducing an
upper limit for k, e.g. 1<=k<=n, and then add all missing terms.
A233552 would become
25, 49, 121, 169, 289, 361, 373, 499, 529, 625, 751, 841, 919, 961, 1159,
1171, 1189, 1225, 1369, 1681, 1849, 2209, 2401, 2419, 2629, 2809, 3025,
3061, 3145, 3301, 3445, 3481, 3721, 3943, 3991, 4159, 4225, 4489, 5041,
5209, 5329, 5461, 5539, 5581,

A233551 would become
89, 419, 659, 839, 1769, 2495, 2609, 2651, 2981, 3419, 3719, 4889, 5459,
5561, 5771, 5837, 6341, 6509, 6971, 7271, 7829, 8447, 8609, 9521,
with 89 and 839 not passing a "for all k" condition.


On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 7:31 PM Neil Sloane <njasloane at gmail.com> wrote:

> Harvey just asked me the following question.  Can anyone help?
>
>
> I may be missing something, but there seem to be many terms missing from
> the above sequence. My calculations show that, up to 1000, each of 25, 49,
> 121, 169, 289, 361, 373, 499, 529, 613, 625, 751, 841, 919, and 961
> satisfies the definition, but only 361 and 919 appear in the data. Am I
> overlooking something? Also, I’m not sure how to test “all k >=1” because
> that would require going up to infinity — so, is there some top limit to
> the value of k that should be tested, e.g., k<=n? Or is there some other
> way to do the test that doesn’t require generating lots of terms?
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>