
COMMENTS

a(3) = 0 because only squares of primes have three divisors.
From T. D. Noe: (Start)
"Note that a(n)=0 for odd n > 1 because a number has an odd number of divisors only if it is a square and there are no consecutive positive squares. Also, a(4)=0 because one of four consecutive numbers would be a multiple of 4 and have 4 divisors only if it is 8.
"Similarly, a(6)=0 because one of six consecutive number would be a multiple of 6 and the only multiples of 6 having 6 divisors are 12 and 18. For a(8), one of the eight consecutive numbers must be an odd multiple of 4, which cannot have 8 divisors. Interestingly, the 7 consecutive numbers starting at 171893 have 8 divisors.
"Similarly, for a(10), one of the ten consecutive numbers must be an odd multiple of 4, which would have 3x divisors. It is also easy to verify that a(n)=0 for n=14,16,20,22,26,28,32,34,... It seems likely that a(n)=0 for n>2." (End)
This sequence is zero for all but finitely many n. If k = floor(log_2(n)), there must be at least one term exactly divisible by 2^j for any j < k; hence the number of divisors must be divisible by j+1, or more generally by lcm_{i<=k} i. The only values of n divisible by this lcm are 1,2,3,4,6,12,24,60 and 120. For example, for n=30, there must be an element divisible by exactly 8, so its number of divisors is divisible by 4. For n = 60, there must by two numbers 8k and 8(k+2) with k odd; then k and k+2 must each have 15 divisors, making them squares. Together with the comments from T. D. Noe, this leaves only 12, 24 and 120 as open questions.  Franklin T. AdamsWatters, Jul 14 2006
As Vladimir Letsko pointed out on Jul 07 2017 at A119479, 99949636937406199604777509122843 starts a run of 13 consecutive integers each having 12 divisors.  Jon E. Schoenfield, Sep 20 2017
