[seqfan] Re: Which of these two definitions is better?

[M. F. Hasler]

Ali,
given the ambiguities that arose earlier, you should not use "consists of
the digits"
but be more explicit :
- must contain every digit of ...(not taken with multiplicity) *at least
once* and no other digits  ?

because it is unclear:
- must every digit of n,n+1 occur? (we know: "yes" ! => "every")
- can digits be re-used ?
  (if n, n+1 have only one '0', can the multiple have several '0's ?)
- must digits be used as many times as there are present ?
  (if n, n+1 have two '1's, must the multiple have exactly/al least two
'1's ?)

Thanks.

PS: could you please also make an effort to avoid the "glued together"
words in your message?
("changedthe" , "twoversions" , "theleast", "optionalextra" , "havethe" ,
"butsince" , "digitswhen" ...)
for example , start and/or end  each  line with a space if necessary.
It is  confusing and  unpleasant to read.
-- 
Maximilian

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:35 PM Ali Sada via SeqFan <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I changedthe sequence I sent earlier and made it more straightforward. It
> has twoversions now.
>
>
>
> Version 1:"a(n) is theleast multiple of n that consists of the digits of
> n, n+1, and an optionalextra digit."
>
>
> Data: 12, 32,234, 504, 65, 276, 287, 928, 189, 10, 121, 132, 143, 154,
> 165, 176, 187, 198, 209,120, 210, 132, 2346, 2544, 625, 2678, 1728, 2968
>
>
>
> Here, we havethe option of not using the extra digit. We add it if it
> gives us a smaller valueof a(n). For example, without an extra digit, a(9)
> should be 10111111119. Butsince we have the option of adding the extra
> digit, a(9) is 189.
>
>
> Version 2:
>
> "a(n) is theleast multiple of n that consists of the digits of n and n+1.
> Add an extra digitwhen necessary."
>
>
>
> Data: 12, 32,4443, 544, 65, 7776, 8888887, 9888, 10111111119, 10, 121,
> 132, 143, 154, 165, 176,187, 198, 209, 120, 210, 2332.
>
>
> In thisversion, we can use the extra digit only when we can’t have a value
> for a(n)without it.
>
>
> In bothversions, I still don’t know if we can have values for all n.
>
> In case oneof these sequences is suitable for the OEIS, I need some help
> calculating the terms!
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Ali
>