[r-t] Double Surprise Major Methods

[Richard Smith]

Philip Saddleton wrote:

>> No wishing to query Phil E's claim of 43 thousand too much I thought
>> the number was lower than that (possibly more restrictive criteria). I
>> generated a list on an old 486 many years ago but the data died with
>> the hard drive. I bow to Phil's more recent data
>
> I make it 6204 with pblhs and no more than two consecutive blows.

That's interesting.  I make it 4408.  I wonder what the 
discrepancy is?

I agree with Phil's 43855, though that's hardly surprising 
as he almost certainly used a piece of software I wrote to 
calculate it.

RAS