[seqfan] Re: A168233(0)

[rayjchandler at sbcglobal.net]

I see no changes in the history since 2016.  
Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: SeqFan <seqfan-bounces at list.seqfan.eu> On Behalf Of Neil Sloane
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 11:30 AM
To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
Subject: [seqfan] Re: A168233(0)

Ray is right!  Let's NOT add the initial term!

Ray,  can you please check that the old version is preserved unchanged?

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 Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:55 AM Georg.Fischer <georg.fischer at t-online.de>
wrote:

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

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