[seqfan] Re: Numbers of the form n*(n+k)
njasloane at gmail.com
Thu Mar 19 15:39:05 CET 2020
Don't think that is a good idea. There is an old law that "thou shalt not
create new terminology unnecessarily".
Let's stick to n(n+2).
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 Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:33 AM MARION <charliemath at optonline.net> wrote:
> Dear SeqFans,
> I have a question regarding terminology.
> We call the terms of A000290 0, 1, 4, 9, ... the (perfect) squares.
> We call the terms of A002378 0, 2, 6, 12 ... the oblongs.
> What do we call the terms of A005563 0, 3, 8, 15?
> What do we call the terms of A028552 0, 4, 10, 18?
> What do you think about calling them the +2products and +3products,
> respectively? Thus, the squares would be the +0products and the oblongs,
> the +1products. Note that I'm not advocating changing the way we refer to
> the squares or the oblongs. I'm simply looking for another way to refer to
> the terms in sequences like A005563 and A028552.
> I would like to call them something other than "the numbers of the form
> n*(n+2)" or "the numbers of the form n*(n+3)." Perhaps I'm just not aware
> of some other "shortcut."
> Thanks for any feedback,
> Charlie Marion
> Yorktown Heights New York
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan