OEIS on vacation in December

[zak seidov]

Rob, seqfans!

Most of these 1174  "prime seidov"'s 
are not of mine, I beleive.

And even all 25594 "prime" sequences
in OEIS have been submitted by me - what then?

Why have Neil and co-editors ACCEPTED them?

(I repeated some 1,000 times that
one should discriminate between RECEIVED and 
ACCEPTED submissions).

It is a general policy (and undisputed right)
of any editor board to select/reject/accept
submissions. 

WARD (=with all due respect),
Zak 

PS You may call me "prime" offender,
but my salary (which is zero) doesn't depend
on the number of "my sequences" appeared in OEIS,
and I don't mind if you'll remove all 
(OK, most of) my submisions from OEIS. 

WARD,
Zak 


--- Rob Pratt <Rob.Pratt at sas.com> wrote:

> Zak,
> 
> You are one of the "prime" offenders.  A search on
> "prime seidov" returns 1174 sequences.
> 
> Rob 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zak seidov [mailto:zakseidov at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:11 AM
> To: Rob Pratt; seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr
> Subject: RE: OEIS on vacation in December
> 
>  
> --- Rob Pratt <Rob.Pratt at sas.com> wrote:
> 
> > Because overzealous contributors have swamped the
> database with 
> > sequences that have a contrived relationship to
> prime numbers.
> > 
> > Rob Pratt
> 
> OK!
> 
> But dear Rob, dear Neil, dear co-editors, and dear
> seqfans!!
> 
> Why not simply to reject such "probably not"
> submissions???!!!
> 
> I "have swamped the list with this Q" 
> and have never got a reasonable explanation....
> 
> WADR (=with all duty respect),
> Zak
> 
> 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Baruchel [mailto:tbaruchel at free.fr]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:19 AM
> > To: seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr
> > Subject: Re: OEIS on vacation in December
> > 
> > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, N. J. A. Sloane wrote:
> > > - don't send in sequences that you made up
> (unless
> > >   they are really beautiful - and if they
> > >   are base dependent or involve primes
> > >   they are probably not)
> > 
> > Just a question ; I do understand very well why
> base dependent 
> > sequences aren't really beautiful, but I sincerely
> wonder why 
> > sequences which involve prime numbers "are
> probably not". Why? Aren't 
> > they the most beautiful ones?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > --
> > Thomas Baruchel
> > 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com