[seqfan] Re: Numbers of the form n*(n+k)

[Neil Sloane]

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).

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 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/
>