|
%I #26 Mar 09 2024 10:29:23
%S 0,1,2,5,6,7,8,11,13,15,16,17,18,21,22,23,24,27,29,31,32,34,35,36,38,
%T 40,43,44,45,46,47,50,51,52,54,56,59,60,61,62,64,65,67,69,71,72,73,75,
%U 78,80,81,82,83,86,87,88,91,92,93,95,96,97,99,102,104,105,106,108,109,111,113,114,117,118,120
%N a(n) = A275884(n+1) - 1.
%C A065188, A065189, A199134, and A275884 should really have started at 0 rather than 1. Then the graph of A065188, for example, would be comparable with the graph of A002251.
%C From _Michel Dekking_, Jun 24 2023: (Start)
%C It is the other way around: the sequence A002251 should have offset 1. This is very logical as the sequence A002251 is defined as the swapping of the sequences L = A000201, U = A001950, two sequences which both have offset 1.
%C The sequence A002251 already occurs in the OEIS with offset 1 as row 1 in sequence A054081.
%C (End)
%H N. J. A. Sloane, <a href="/A275894/b275894.txt">Table of n, a(n) for n = 0..30900</a>
%H F. Michel Dekking, Jeffrey Shallit, and N. J. A. Sloane, <a href="https://doi.org/10.37236/8905">Queens in exile: non-attacking queens on infinite chess boards</a>, Electronic J. Combin., 27:1 (2020), #P1.52.
%Y Cf. A065188, A065189, A199134, A275884, A275893, A002251.
%K nonn
%O 0,3
%A _N. J. A. Sloane_, Aug 23 2016
|
