[SequencesForFun] Re: The OEIS will be on holiday for the rest of the year!

[cino hilliard]

>From: Russ Cox <rsc at swtch.com>
>Reply-To: SequencesForFun at yahoogroups.com
>To: cino hilliard <hillcino368 at hotmail.com>
>CC: seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr, SequencesForFun at yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [SequencesForFun] Re: The OEIS will be on holiday for the rest of 
>the year!
>Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:18:23 -0500
>
>You can make claims of relativism until you are blue in the face,
>but no matter what, *this* is a dumb sequence:
Yes so dumb that it prompted comment and correction by two other fans.
So if dumb sequences are allowed due to cuteness, why now do sequences have 
to be really
important and in your work?

Me:take out all dumb and unimportant  sequences from the database but leave 
them in  decoys
mode so new dumb unimportant sequences will not reach the editor for useless 
work.
I can understand how "decoy" sequences can stop a flood of re-discoveries 
such a decimal expansion of sqrt(n). However I do not recall promoting dunb 
sequences.


>
>%I A039928
>%S A039928 1,3,3,0,10,12,1,24,25,32,116,12,412,109, ...
>%N A039928 Sum of first n terms of A_n (using absolute values of terms).
>
>Cute perhaps, but still dumb.  It adds no value to searches
>of the database.  No one is ever going to come across this
>sequence in another context and wonder what it is and look
>for it here.
Proof of a non-denumerable set? :-)

This helps. Context. A sequence to be important must have at least 1 other 
context in the data base before submit. Doing advanced searches on text in 
you definition would help find other
contexts if you are not sure of your creation. I can do that.

>
>There are dumber, less cute, less interesting sequences in
>the database than this one.  I chose this one because it is mine.
>
>Russ