Why sequences of marginal interest are bad

[Jonathan Post]

As, for instance, Fibonacci numbers as sums of natural numbers, triangular
numbers, tetrahedral numbers, ...?  Or A048888 as the sum of Fibonacci,
tribonacci, tetranacci, ...?

Is there a "spectrum" of the OEIS as to the distribution of number of seqs
related by some standard set oif transformations to other sequences? You are
saying that there is a peak in the eigenspectrum at 2, and more beyond that.
Assuming that her spectrum is known from your amazing work so fare, does
that quantify the time-complexity of continuing the great work as a function
of number of seqs?

On 12/18/06, Ralf Stephan <ralf at ark.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> > Does the computational difficulty of extending the automated search for
> > correlations between sequences go as the square of the number of
> sequences?
>
> To be honest, square complexity would be a lucky thing.
> With square complexity, you can only link two sequences
> via one binary operation. But often, unknown formulae involve
> much more than one operation.
>
> So, it's much worse than you guess.
>
>
> ralf
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/attachments/20061218/85c20cae/attachment-0002.htm>