6 Sep
2005
6 Sep
'05
6:22 a.m.
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 hv@crypt.org wrote: > :Hmmm, the outputs of our programs differ from some point on. Thus mine or > :yours is wrong - this is not exclusive or: they may both be wrong... > > Check Eric's original series of examples again: this is not Conway's > "look and say" type of description. My guess (as encoded in my perl) was > that the digits are sorted before describing, so that the description You're right. I hadn't read carefully. I think that any further followup should be offlist(s). I set up Reply-To accordingly. Modify the recipients lists at will to include whomever you think is appropriate... > In principle both are perfectly valid sequences though. Indeed. Although I'm not that keen on base-dependent or self-descripting sequences - of course Conway's is an exception, especially since it's fundamentally not base dependent. Michele -- > primordinarily concerned with providing ... Neat "word"! - Donald Arseneau in comp.text.tex