Peter Schonefeld
asked on
The correct way to define a sequence of shapes?
Not exactly sure what you are trying to do or see. Are we supposed to reinterpret the octal numbers as decimal?
The Fibonacci series grows exponentially once it get started.
A289006 grows even faster, no matter how it is interpreted.
You will get a series of triangles that fit in a 2-unit wide vertical strip.
The vertical extent of the triangles will grow exponentially.
The Fibonacci series grows exponentially once it get started.
A289006 grows even faster, no matter how it is interpreted.
You will get a series of triangles that fit in a 2-unit wide vertical strip.
The vertical extent of the triangles will grow exponentially.
ASKER
Thanks phoffric for the note :)
d-glitch, thanks for your comment. Yes, i agree that following the first few elements in the sequence the shapes will not be visually interesting in a graph because of the exponential growth that you mention. My question relates to the fact that, as I don't have any mathematics training, I need to know if the included formula is correct and the notation is okay. FYI, i'm using the output to cast ceramic shapes and would like the numbers to accompany the work (see below) but if the notation or the formula is wrong then it will detract from the ceramics.
d-glitch, thanks for your comment. Yes, i agree that following the first few elements in the sequence the shapes will not be visually interesting in a graph because of the exponential growth that you mention. My question relates to the fact that, as I don't have any mathematics training, I need to know if the included formula is correct and the notation is okay. FYI, i'm using the output to cast ceramic shapes and would like the numbers to accompany the work (see below) but if the notation or the formula is wrong then it will detract from the ceramics.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thanks d-glitch, I can see your points and will work on the issues that you have highlighted. You are correct that the 3D is not fully represented by the 2D shapes, currently they only represent two sides of the object but will be working on that too.
Just the feedback I was after, thanks again for your time!
Just the feedback I was after, thanks again for your time!
ASKER
I very much appreciate your time on this. Thank you.
https://oeis.org/A289006 (written by the author of this OP)
and references https://oeis.org/A011655