stroke sequence Sorry

[Marc LeBrun]

 >=y.kohmoto
 > o Should I post it to OIES for the comment line of A002620?

I'm no expert, but I suspect you should carefully check to see if some of 
the comments already there are essentially "isomorphic" to your "stroke" 
definition.  For example I'm not sure how your "perfect di-graph" and the 
"bipartite graphs" or "2 covers"  mentioned in the comments might be 
related.  If it's really a fresh new way for the sequence to arise then of 
course a comment is good.

 > o Is my English readable? If not, tell me a good description of the
 > definition of stroke.

The definition seems OK but it's also kind of long.  This makes it a tough 
call.  I would advise doing a little more thinking and research before 
submitting it.  It's possible that you can create a more succinct 
statement, either by some new insight on your part, or by using some more 
compact or "standard" nomenclature that's used elsewhere (such as in the 
graph theory literature).


Unfortunately sometimes there's an interesting construction or "mini 
theory" behind a sequence that's really too complicated to make a good OEIS 
entry.

This is exacerbated if there are several related sequences, because then 
they ALL require this information.  (Sometimes you can pick a "fundamental" 
sequence in the bunch, put the explanation there and use cross references 
for the rest.  But other times it's too complicated or there really isn't 
any good choice for a "main" sequence.)

I think the best solution then is to author an independent explanation, 
either for publication or as a private web page, and link to it in the OEIS 
comment, for example "Maximal numbers of strokes on Kd_n, see 
http://www.kohmoto.com/strokes.html"