Obscure sequences

[David Wilson]

My opinion on obscure sequences:

According to the documentation, the "obsc" keyword means that the definition does not match or
adequately describe the sequence.  I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing, especially since
NJAS's original intention was to catalog sequences in the literature, regardless of their sanity,
and we might expect some of these sequences to be mysterious.  I can see these reasons that a
sequence might have the "obsc" keyword:

1.  There is a reasonable definition of the sequence, but the given definition is incorrect or
inadequate.  Here the "obsc" keyword is justified.  This might be the case for, say, A056787, where
a definition is lacking, or with A076790, where the definition could stand simplification, of
A007998 where the sequence bears no apparent relation to its definition.  In this case, either the
sequence should be retained with the "obsc" keyword, the definition should be corrected and the
"obsc" keyword removed, or the sequence expunged.

2.  The sequence is in fact adequately described.  Here the "obsc" keyword is unjustified.  In some
cases, it seems that "obsc" was used to mark a contrived or unimportant sequence, in which case the
better keyword is "dumb".  Foe example, A031873 is adequately defined, and "obsc" does not apply.
The "obsc" keyword should be removed and/or replaced with "dumb".

3.  There is no reasonable definition of the sequence.  For example, A051842 was contrived as an
example of an arbitrary point value assignment to the subjective ratings "terrible", "poor",
"normal", "good", "excellent".  It has no mathematical explanation.  Either note it is contrived and
remove the "obsc" keyword, or else expunge the sequence.

My suggestion for dealing with the existing "obsc" sequences is to replace "obsc" with "new" and
resubmit them as new sequences to undergo the review process.

By-the-by, there are hundreds of sequences in the OEIS that are technically "obsc".  For example,
A000236, A000445, etc ad infinitum.  The definition given in the sequence description is not enough
to generate the sequence, though the references might help.  Technically, these sequences should be
"obsc", although I don't think it will be done.