[seqfan] Re: A168233(0)

[Allan Wechsler]

Well, people have objected, so I withdraw the suggestion.

To answer part of Ray Chandler's question, the extra term would be useful
if someone searches OEIS for 1,1,4,4,7,7,10,10... as I did. I was told the
terms did not match anything in OEIS. Of course, being a reasonably
experienced user, I cut off the initial 1 and tried again, but it would
have been nice not to have to go to the trouble.

Ray reasonably asks if the gain is worth the trouble, and I trust my
colleagues' judgement that it isn't.

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/
>