Hacker News Reader

Well haha still seems like a lot of brain was put into it.

Also, there's a simpler pattern to the sequence that is easily observable without even opening OEIS.

Unfortunately, if you spot that pattern then you will not guess the correct generalization. It seems that this may be a puzzle that's easier to solve if you aren't good at spotting easy things.

Well tbh, it seems 2^k-1 does actually match the sequence as far as it is shown. Perhaps there is a proof that n=2^k-1 for the numbers where 2^n is divisible by (n+1). I'll have to see.

What's the simpler pattern?

Presumably multiplying by two and adding one? That's the pattern that jumped out to me, unless they're talking about something more subtle.

Oh, of course! Looking at it now that's pretty obvious, lol.

Although I think even if I had spotted that I still would have put it into oeis to see if there was a quick membership test.

Which is to say, 2^n-1.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com