[seqfan] Re: Will this pattern continue for all numbers?
pemd70 at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 21 19:11:33 CEST 2020
Thank you for your email. "Merging point" is the accurate term. Sorry for my choice of words. Dr. Israel added the sequence to the OEIS. It is A334245.
On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 8:29:34 AM EDT, David Seal <david.j.seal at gwynmop.com> wrote:
To clarify: it seemed clear to me from Ali Sada's original post that where it used the term "meeting point", it was actually talking about what I've called the "merging point", and it asked for help defining the sequence properly. Tim Peters had entirely validly pointed out that sequences could "meet" without "merging", and so in response to both of them, I made the suggestion that "merging point" might be a better term to use for what the original post was talking about. It is just a terminology suggestion, to help distinguish the two different concepts, not any sort of fundamental disagreement with anything that has been said!
> On 18 April 2020 at 17:08 Tim Peters <tim.peters at gmail.com> wrote:
> [David Seal]
> > As a terminology suggestion, perhaps "merging point" would
> > be better than "meeting point"? In terms of the natural meaning
> > of the words, "merging point" implies that the two sequences
> > become the same from that point on, like e.g. two rivers merging,
> > whereas "meeting point" only implies they're the same at that
> > point, like e.g. two friends meeting.
> Which is why I stuck with the original "meeting" ;-) The idea that
> the sequences become identical upon the first match was advanced in
> the original post, and not questioned, but it's not true. Indeed,
> both sequences - by construction - _start_ at the same number. They
> diverge later. The same can happen at the next time they match.
> I think the smallest example starts with 95. Doing smallest prime first, we get
> 95, 100, 105, 108, 111, 114, 133, 140, 147, 150, 155, ...
> Largest prime first,
> 95, 114, 116, 145, 150, 155, 160, 165, 168, 175. 180, ...
> They first meet at 114. Then they diverge again. They next meet at
> 150. _Then_ they're the same forever after. It depends on whether
> the parities of the numbers of iterations we've done to get to the
> match are the same - i.e., on whether both sequences are or aren't
> going to do the same of "largest prime" or "smallest prime" next
> (which may become more complicated than just that if the meeting point
> is a power of a prime).
> >> On 17 April 2020 at 21:04 Tim Peters <tim.peters at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [Ali Sada via SeqFan <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>]
> >> > We start with n and use the map k-->k+p, where p alternates between
> >> > the “largest prime factor” and the “smallest prime factor”.
> >> >
> >> > We have two versions here: a) largest, smallest, largest, etc.; and
> >> > b) smallest, largest, smallest, etc.
> >> >
> >> > What is interesting is that it seems, at least for the small group of
> >> > numbers I checked, that no matter what version we use, we will
> >> > reach a meeting point. (I can't prove that.)
> >> "Meeting point" needs some elaboration. When k is a power of a prime,
> >> (a) and (b) meet on their first iterations. But the results later
> >> seem to skip over all initial "meetings", waiting until (a) and (b)
> >> diverge before a later "meeting" counts. For example, 2 maps to 4
> >> either way, and then 4 maps to 6 either way, but neither of those seem
> >> to count.
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan