[seqfan] Re: A168233(0)

[Georg.Fischer]

When I'm trying to mechanically evaluate formulae like these:
#F A168286 a(n) = 2*A168233(n) = A168301(n) + 1. (End)
#F A168410 a(n) = 3*A168233(n). - _R. J. Mathar_, Jul 10 2011
#F A178977 a(n) = A168233(n+1)*A168300(n+1).
I fail continously because of such a(0)/a(1) discrepancies.

Ray is right.

Am 30.03.2021 um 15:59 schrieb 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/
> 
> 
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
> 

-- 
Dr. Georg Fischer, Rotteckring 19, D-79341 Kenzingen
Tel. (07644) 913016, +49 175 160 7788, www.teherba.org