Surely we could at least calculate A027623(32). I mean, the stupidest imaginable enumerator would take only a few minutes to run ... wouldn't it? While we are here -- I am as big a fan as anybody of not excluding the zero case whenever possible. But this case just seems weird to me. We have two sequences, A027623 and A037234, which differ only in the zero entry, which is 1 for the former and 0 for the latter. Clearly there must be angels-dancing-on-pins arguments lurking here, but I can't think of any. There aren't any rings with no elements, are there? On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:45 AM Neil Sloane <njasloane@gmail.com> wrote:
The Dec 2020 issue of the Amer Math Monthly has an article
Desmond MacHale, Are there more finite rings than finite groups?, Amer. Math. Monthly, 127:10 (2020), 936-938.
showing that there are infinitely many n such that there are more groups with n elements than rings with n elements. He gives one example, n = 36355, and asks if this is the smallest such n. This is a sequence not yet in the OEIS! Anyone care to investigate?
These are the n such that A000001(n) > A027623(n). _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun