On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:25 PM, David Wilson <davidwwilson@comcast.net>wrote:
When I posed the problem, I thought it might be an interesting diversion, but perhaps there are a couple of sequences and perhaps a paper in there.
I would think so! Though for a paper, it would be great to show at least a little progress on Michael Reid's question, looking for a *set* of multipliers, not necessarily of the form {1,...,k}. --Michael
On 1/7/2012 2:49 PM, Tom Rokicki wrote:
More likely, I need to write more clearly and with fewer mistakes.
Also I don't think I actually stated the result you have on smallest seed. So no need for any apologies.
If you want to be completely correct, I owe Michael Kleber an apology for repeating something he proved, and I don't have an excuse of his writeup being unclear.
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 11:17 AM, David Wilson<davidwwilson@comcast.**net<davidwwilson@comcast.net>> wrote:
Well, then, it looks like I owe Tom an apology, he apparently preceeded me in all of my conclusions. Perhaps I need to read a bit more before writing.
______________________________**_________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-**fun<http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun>
-- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush.