[seqfan] Re: Fractal sequence A087088

Neil Sloane njasloane at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 17:42:20 CEST 2020

```Changing the offset to 1 looks like a good idea!

I made some grammatical improvements.

Unless someone disagrees, I would say go ahead and change the offset

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 Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:27 AM Peter Munn <techsubs at pearceneptune.co.uk>
wrote:

> Hello seqfans,
>
> A087088 claims to be "the simplest nontrivial sequence" such that removing
> every "1" gives the same result as adding 1 to every term. Ruler
> sequences, such as A001511, share this property, so does anyone have a
> clear idea how "simplest nontrivial" might be defined?
>
> And can anyone shed light on the reason its offset is 3? [1]
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Peter
>
> [1] Apart from the b-file, the rest of the sequence is written as though
> the offset is 1 (so formulas are strictly incorrect). The relationship to
> A244040 contributed by Edgar and Van Alstine is neatest with offset 1 or
> offset 0. A relationship I discovered recently (comment in
> https://oeis.org/A024629) is clearly neatest if the offset is 1, whilst my
> work on symmetry (https://oeis.org/history/view?seq=A087088&v=25) and with
> A335933 suggests an OEIS-incompatible offset of 1.5 .
>
> As we are only now starting to refer from other sequences to terms of
> A087088, it seems a good time to settle on a good offset. Unless anyone
> knows a good reason for keeping it as 3, offset 1 seems better.
>
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>

```

More information about the SeqFan mailing list