[seqfan] Re: A168233(0)

[rayjchandler at sbcglobal.net]

The programs all need to be revised to produce the altered sequence.  

There are other sequences that relate to A168233 with formulas - these would
need to be checked for correctness.  Or do you revise these too with an
additional term?

What is gained by making this change and is it worth all that effort?
Ray


-----Original Message-----
From: SeqFan <seqfan-bounces at list.seqfan.eu> On Behalf Of Frank
Adams-watters via SeqFan
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 11:48 PM
To: seqfan at list.seqfan.eu
Cc: Frank Adams-watters <franktaw at netscape.net>
Subject: [seqfan] Re: A168233(0)

The generating functions (in the formulas section) also change.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters


-----Original Message-----
From: Allan Wechsler <acwacw at gmail.com>
To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
Sent: Mon, Mar 29, 2021 8:51 pm
Subject: [seqfan] A168233(0)

Can anyone think of a good reason not to extend A168233 so that the 0th
entry is 1? As far as I can tell, the only changes that would need to be
made would be to amend the data, the B-file, and the offset. I *think* all
the statements in the comments are still true but I would appreciate another
set of eyes.

--
Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/

--
Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/