recreational sequences in the EIS

[Brian L. Galebach]

Hello all,

I agree with the idea of possibly having a "rec" designation.  However, if
implemented, this should probably be used exclusively for sequences that
clearly could never have any significant mathematical implications outside
the original sequence.  For example, "5 5 5 3 4 4 4 2...", which are the
notes of Beethoven's 5th symphony, clearly will never be found to be the
coefficients of some yet-to-be-discovered physical constants of the
universe.  However, the sequence "-1 2 3 6 11 14 15", which gives the
curvatures of circles found in a particular circle packing, while not
currently having any known application, should not be given the "rec"
designation, since we cannot be sure that no application will ever be found.

However, is there really any benefit to dropping a "dumb" sequence?  If I
want to search for "0,3,6,9,12,15" and find a sequence containing multiples
of 3, does this really upset me?  I guess I've just not yet seen any
(correct) sequences that were so dumb that they ruined my day.

Brian Galebach

-----Original Message-----
From: Erich Friedman [mailto:efriedma at stetson.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 2:13 PM
To: seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr
Subject: recreational sequences in the EIS


seq fans

i agree with neil that the general quality of the database (including
accuracy, ease of use, and amount of information) has increased in recent
years.  but many factors (the rate of incoming sequences, the growing
popularity of the database by amateurs, and the lack of help neil has) make
it inevitable that a large number of sequences will make it into the
database that shouldn't be there (because of errors, or because they're
just plain dumb).

of course we all won't agree which sequences should be there.  i too enjoy
recreational sequences, but i understand that not everyone does.  at any
rate, the line has to be drawn somewhere about which sequences to keep and
which ones to reject.  perhaps there should be a "rec" designation for
sequences that are recreational in nature?  many of these will be listed
under the "base" designation, but there will be many others.

so what can we do to help?  i suggest that we all look through the database
and suggest some sequences to be dropped.  perhaps neil could add the
"dumb" designation the first time someone suggests a sequence be dropped,
and remove it the second time (using his splendid judgement of course) ?

erich friedman