Tomas, You might add this remark as a comment in A181391: "if there's an integer missing [from Van Eck's sequence], it is at least 519,068,589." Because other people are surely looking at the same question, so it is important to keep a record of how far the search has gone. (But remember in the OEIS numbers don't have internal commas or spaces!) Brad and Tomas, This sequence should be added to the OEIS, if you have not already done so! (with offset 0): 1,2,4,21,25,11,... based on Pair 0 0 at 1 Pair 0 1 at 2 Pair 0 2 at 4 Pair 0 3 at 21 Pair 0 4 at 25 Pair 0 5 at 11 Pair 0 6 at 31 Pair 0 7 at 277 Interesting sequence. 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@gmail.com On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 1:46 PM Tomas Rokicki <rokicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, at this point I've shown if there's an integer missing from Van Eck's sequence, it is at least 519,068,589.
And 6's are increasingly rare, more so than other small integers (up to about 250B entries). Initially 3's are rare, but this characteristic moves to 4's, then 5's, and now 6's. One could expect this to continue . . .
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:39 AM Tomas Rokicki <rokicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Following along Brad's comments, here are the first occurrences of pairs starting with 0 in Van Eck's sequence. Anyone want to try to fill in the value for (0,32) (or (0,n) for n>34)?
Pair 0 0 at 1 Pair 0 1 at 2 Pair 0 2 at 4 Pair 0 3 at 21 Pair 0 4 at 25 Pair 0 5 at 11 Pair 0 6 at 31 Pair 0 7 at 277 Pair 0 8 at 389 Pair 0 9 at 82 Pair 0 10 at 226 Pair 0 11 at 727 Pair 0 12 at 2,936 Pair 0 13 at 1,409 Pair 0 14 at 7,719 Pair 0 15 at 5,625 Pair 0 16 at 5,681 Pair 0 17 at 85,999 Pair 0 18 at 26,707 Pair 0 19 at 546,291 Pair 0 20 at 1,112,930 Pair 0 21 at 702,576 Pair 0 22 at 3,425,418 Pair 0 23 at 10,537,361 Pair 0 24 at 21,301,907 Pair 0 25 at 217,230,901 Pair 0 26 at 108,698,092 Pair 0 27 at 32,381,775 Pair 0 28 at 846,522,987 Pair 0 29 at 851,764,847 Pair 0 30 at 11,692,311,326 Pair 0 31 at 46,163,898,988 Pair 0 32 at ??? Pair 0 33 at 118,456,929,919 Pair 0 34 at 250,327,022,558 Pair 0 35 at ???
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:25 AM Brad Klee <bradklee@gmail.com> wrote:
Ouch... this one looks like it could lead to some serious brain damage.
If A171868 lists all integers, then so too does A181391. Due to the rule, A171868 has much slower growth and, as far as I can tell, could even be bounded above. Does A171868 always continue to grow?
I don't know.
--Brad
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:48 AM Bill Gosper <billgosper@gmail.com> wrote:
Neil Sloane has Numberphiled a perplexing integer sequence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etMJxB-igrc —rwg _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- -- http://cube20.org/ -- http://golly.sf.net/ --
-- -- http://cube20.org/ -- http://golly.sf.net/ -- _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun