# [seqfan] Re: 1 =5

M. F. Hasler oeis at hasler.fr
Thu Feb 24 01:29:19 CET 2022

```On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 2:11 AM vincenzo.librandi_tin.it <
vincenzo.librandi at tin.it> wrote:

> Dear Seqfans a solution could b:
> 1 = 5
> 2= 25
> 3=605
> 4=10855
> 5 =6
> 6=26
> 7=606
> 8=10856
> 9=7
> 10=27

(...)

OK, we can describe this choice as
"repeat the 4 values, all increased by 1 after each completed cycle."

But why increase by 1? Why not by 5 (all terms are multiples of 5),
or even simpler, thus better: don't increase at all?
i.e., simply: "repeat the 4 values",
1=5, 2=25, 3=605, 4=10855 , 5=5, 6=25, 7=605, 8=10855, 9=5, 10=25, ...

This would accidentally justify 5=5, as required by "equal" and "reflexive"
-- but not by the jury...

In any case, the "expected" answer " 5=1 " is totally unsatisfying - the
worst of any answer one could logically think of.
(Besides all that has already been said earlier, all terms on the right
hand side are (odd) multiples of 5, why should 5=... be an exception?)

It is so frustrating to know that even if all qualified mathematicians on
the planet would say that this doesn't make sense and propose a bunch of
better answers together with logically correct reasoning why and proofs
that each of these are better, the jury would still maintain their
arbitrary and nonsensical choice of the expected "correct" answer...