[seqfan] Re: A194945

[rayjchandler at sbcglobal.net]

Sorry, I meant to say A194944 is really the records in A034693.  And I see
Neil has already reached out to the author.  
Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: SeqFan <seqfan-bounces at list.seqfan.eu> On Behalf Of
rayjchandler at sbcglobal.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 11:25 AM
To: 'Sequence Fanatics Discussion list' <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
Subject: [seqfan] Re: A194945

Peter, Nice catch.  Similarly, A194945 is really the records in A034693.  I
do not see the corresponding sequences for A194943 in the OEIS.  
Copying the author who will know what to do to fix it.
Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: SeqFan <seqfan-bounces at list.seqfan.eu> On Behalf Of Peter Munn
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 8:32 PM
To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
Subject: [seqfan] A194945

A194945	claims to be "Position of records in A194943", but its data seems
to have been produced by its program, which is clearly designed to produce a
valuable, but different, sequence: the positions of records in A034693
(Smallest k such that k*n+1 is prime).

I guess we have both record sequences going forward, but which should
A194945 be? Generally I believe the rule is to follow the data, but does the
rule apply when the name is so explicitly a different sequence?

Best regards,

Peter


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


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