A very simple sequence, but one that is not included in the OEIS.

[Jamil Silva]

Minimum number of diametrical cuts that divide a pizza equally among n people.
0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 12, 13, 13, 14, 14, 15, 15, 16, 16, 17, 17, 18, 18, 19, 19, . . .

[Md. Rad Sarar Anando]

As far as I know, any proposed sequence should be of general interest, meaning it should also have mathematical sense rather than just be fun. IMO this is not that sense. 
--Rad

On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 10:53 PM Jamil Silva <jmai...@gmail.com> wrote:

Minimum number of diametrical cuts that divide a pizza equally among n people.
0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 12, 13, 13, 14, 14, 15, 15, 16, 16, 17, 17, 18, 18, 19, 19, . . .

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SeqFan" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to seqfan+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/seqfan/37ffde9d-bb86-49b1-b1f6-ced933a122c7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Allan Wechsler]

If it is in fact true that this satisfies A(n) = A008619(n-1) with the single exception that A(1) = 0 instead of 1, then Jamil's interpretation might merit a comment on A008619. Remember that we often recommend that if your search has no results, you try omitting the first one or two entries. A user who did that and found A008619 would almost certainly be satisfied with a comment there.

-- Allan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/seqfan/CA%2Bx4cjk21w7-kG_B6%3DH73U-ij5%2BSxTtS2yvoajEQtRJ2ptZiTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rémy Etc]

In my opinion, if you replace "pizza" with "disk" and “equally among n people” with “n partitions of sectors with equal area” you get an interesting mathematical problem.

Best regards,

Rémy

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/seqfan/CA%2Bx4cjk21w7-kG_B6%3DH73U-ij5%2BSxTtS2yvoajEQtRJ2ptZiTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jamil Silva]

That's true... I understand now.
Thanks to Allan Wechsler.

[Arthur O'Dwyer]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 1:14 PM Allan Wechsler <acw...@gmail.com> wrote:

If it is in fact true that this satisfies A(n) = A008619(n-1) with the single exception that A(1) = 0 instead of 1, then Jamil's interpretation might merit a comment on A008619. Remember that we often recommend that if your search has no results, you try omitting the first one or two entries. A user who did that and found A008619 would almost certainly be satisfied with a comment there.

+1. Unfortunately there is also A004526 — the same sequence with a different offset — which also has a bunch of comments, some of which are about the properties of "a(n-1)".

And yes, I think it's "obviously" just floor((n+1)/2) with the single exception that A(1) = 0 instead of 1.

I have no problem with the phrasing "divide a pizza equally (or evenly) among n people," but then, I'm American. There are probably cultural factors at work here (e.g. that the stereotypical pizza is circular).

Now, suppose the problem were "Minimum number of (not necessarily diametrical) cuts that divide a circular pizza equally among n people" — is this sequence any different?

    a(1...) = 0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, ...

Or suppose the problem were "Minimum number of (necessarily) non-diametrical cuts that divide a circular pizza equally among n people" — that sequence starts

    a(1...) = 0, 2, 2, 3, ...

But I don't think that one is of general interest, because AFAICT its quirks are entirely due to fiddling around to avoid accidentally making a diametrical cut.

–Arthur

[Jamil Silva]

Allan Wechsler, please clarify something for you. How can we know that the sequences are the same if we don't have all the terms of the one I posted? I don't know if this pattern in pairs of integers applies to the cases.

Em quinta-feira, 23 de abril de 2026 às 14:14:20 UTC-3, acw...@gmail.com escreveu:

[Jamil Silva]

Yes, Rémy. Very well observed. I made the mistake of posing as if I were certain that this pattern repeats indefinitely for all n, but I only tested up to n=20 and I don't know if this pattern is correct. That's why I searched the OEIS to find a formula. But they don't yet have this sequence with this interpretation.

[Jamil Silva]

I'm also not sure if it follows that floor((n+1)/2) pattern. I only tested up to n=20. That's why I can't even say if it's similar to the ones in OEIS that you mentioned.