[seqfan] Concerning William Orrick's message

[Neil Sloane]

(I am starting a new thread, that one was already too long)

In an earlier message in the thread, William Orrick said there are 3
possibilities for the start of the sequence:
>>> 1) The physically correct choice: there is one empty arrangement, no

>>> 1, 0, 0, 1, 2, 13, 80, 579, 4738, ... This will be the new A335700

>>> 2) The mathematically nicest choice: Touchard gives an expression for
the ...
>>>
>>> 2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 13, 80, 579, 4738, ... This is A102761
>>>

>>> 3) A "desymmetrized" choice:
>>>
>>> 1, -1, 0, 2, 13, 80, 579, 4738, ...  This will be the new A335701

Then there is the existing sequence A000179, which is a fourth candidate:

4)  1, -1, 0, 1, 2, 13, 80, 579, 4738, 43387, ... This is A000179

I think the way to resolve this is to have all 4 sequences  in the OEIS
with distinct  A-numbers.

In his email, Will favors sequence 2), which is A102761. And A000179 has to
stay because it has existed as an OEIS entry for about 50 years

I am going to create two entries, for 1) and 3), which will be A335700 and
A335701.

They will say something like "alternative starts to A000179 and A102761"