TR : Re : The OEIS will be on holiday for the rest of the year!

[Alexandre Wajnberg]

Hi all,

How do we define quality in a jumbling of integers?
> Why don't we use
> other words like beauty? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? How is one
> formula or generating
> algorithm more or less beautiful or have more quality than another? Who can
> be so arrogant as to ordain, decree quality on one insignificant concoction
> over another?


Thank you, Cino, for your beautiful chant for the human spirit.

This debate is very important and interesting besides its passion which
shows OEIS is very important for each of us, at different levels.

These tensions are arising because of the diverse meanings we attribute to
OEIS and the diverse uses we make of it.

One of the hidden properties of the base, for me, is that it stimulates our
scientific creativity. Each time somebody enters the base, whatever his
goal, while doing what he has to do, enriches his spirit and/or his
mathematical skills.
Whatever the "quality" of the sequences. For instances:

%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).

...has this extraordinary feature of surprise, it shakes the usual way of
thinking, forcing the mind of the reader to get out of his mental frame; a
process which is one of the definitions of creativity, and one of its tools!

Who knows which really deeper mathematical idea could appear, later, in
another part of the world, "rooted" in such a type of mental algorithm!
An algorithm nevertheless expressed by this useless
"since-the-sequences-in-the-OEIS-occasionally-change-their-initial-terms-(fo
r-editorial-reasons)-especially-ill-defined" sequence!

Also, about the "bad" sequences, it's the problem of the half full, half
empty bottle: one may criticize some sequences of an author, one may also
acknowledge the interesting others of his production.
If "bad" sequences where forbidden, anyway, a lot of contributors would not
dare to submit any sequences, even "good" ones may be!

As a screenplaywriter, I used to learn that one of the basic laws of
collective creativity is first to accept a so-called "bad" idea of a member
of the team. Because it's impossible to know in advance what will arise as
by-products/consequences/inductions from it. If you refuse a "bad" idea, you
stay at the same place; around you, the vue is the same, and is inspiring
you the same way, i.e. "badly" since it gave you a "bad" idea!
While accepting it, you go forward, the vue changes, and then also the
resonances with your mind. It's impossible to evaluate the importance of
this phenomenon.

In a letter to Legendre, Carl Jacobi said: "It is true that Fourier has the
opinion that the principal object of mathematics is the public utility and
the explanation of natural phenomena, but a scientist like him ought to know
that the unique object of science is the honor of the human spirit, and on
this basis, a question of the theory of numbers is worth as much as a
question about the planetary system."

May be could this be applied mutatis mutandis to the "utility" of certain
sequences.
Of course, from a short-term point of view, these are rendering the searches
more difficult. But from a longer-term point of view, there is an invaluable
"return" through this permanent stimulation.

Now, there is the problem of those systematic repeatitive numerological easy
base sequences only there, it seems, to satisfy the only pleasure of their
only author (some of mine are in this case)...  Should they really be
accepted? They are! Then "Dumb" is a useful keyword, which should not be
taken as a personnal judgement, but rather as a tool to the search engine.
BTW, how to do a search in the new engine, excluding an item (as it is
possible with the boolean old engine)?
And why are at least no less interessant sequences than supra not accepted?
(ex: 1903, 2303, 2307, 2311, 2315... "Exceptional years of 23rd december's
winter solstice since the beginning of the Gregorian Calendar in 1582" is no
less interessant than a "word" sequence).


Anyway, what would be a shortened base?! We can't build THE base and at the
same time complain there are too much sequences or too much "bad" sequences!
In french, we say "You can't have the butter and the money from the butter!"
(and some add "and the smile of the dairymaid!").

However,with the new search engine, this problem is partly solved.

And thanks to Neil and al., with the wonderful new search engine, we fly!

We fly and it will be more work for the maintainers of the base and for
Neil!
So we can't avoid the question of their work-pression; it's part of the
actual frictions. Should we be indulgent to Neil? even if sometimes, he
seems not to consider the bad feelings (sadness, shame, anger...) which may
be produced by a hard word... while everybody try to do his best.
And when some cool explanations would be more adapted in most cases.

Please Neil, Protect us from Your Lightnings while the base is enlighting
us!


Alexandre.

PS: Cino, about the fun and the Eurêka!, I think I'm one of the members of
your club!




> Me:
> I am saddened by this approach to deign quality and importance on sequences
> in view of
> the 90-100 thousand sub quality sequences already sat down and made up and
> submitted. if there are 2000 quality, important sequences out there it would
> be a surprise. Perhaps a sequence or two
> from each of the "great" mathematicians ever may have importance and quality
> but only from a
> historical perspective.  How do we define quality in a jumbling of integers?
> Why don't we use
> other words like beauty? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? How is one
> formula or generating
> algorithm more or less beautiful or have more quality than another? Who can
> be so arrogant as to ordain, decree quality on one insignificant concoction
> over another?
> 
> Another overworked word: important. Who can judge in an increasingly
> changing world what
> is important in a forced contrivance of numerology?  Who could rank the
> known sequences by
> order of importance? What would be the criteria, justifications, reasoning,
> fickle? I like chevrolet
> cars some others may like Rolls. How can we even discuss quality and
> importance in a matter of
> such high personal genetically defined preference?
> 
> As humans, how do we learn best? We ask questions. That is all a sequence
> is. It is a question from
> someone who is curious about his/her invention. A question of what,where and
> why. What is this
> string of numbers? Where or who else knows about it? Why does it behave that
> way?
> 
> This reasoning leads to other questions? What is mathematics? What is
> geography? what is truth?
> Most of you probably do not know the textbook definition of geography. Just
> word roots give you
> a clue. Geo-earth, graph - mapping, drawing. So geography is the study of
> the earth would be
> an intelligent answer. But what about the Moon or mars the ocean? so,
> geography is defined as the
> study of PLACE. It is the study of places in such a way that one place has
> characteristics no other
> place has. This uniqueness definition of geography allows us to categorize
> places in the real world.
> We know that a dessert is a dry and hot and cold place. A dessert is
> different from Manhattan which
> can also be hot and cold and dry. Can we do a qualitative comparison between
> an Arizona dessert
> and Manhattan? But of course! Which has more quality? Which is more
> important? Indeed, we
> can pursue this argument to the stars and to the grains of sand on a beach.
> But no matter how
> hard we try to qualify one place over the other we are left with the
> ferocious travesty of doubt
> in our conclusion as to which place should be discarded as intellectual
> refuse.
> 
> Analogously, mathematics can be defined as the study of the patterns in the
> collections of symbols
> in such a way one collection has characteristics no other collection has.
> 
> Sequences are patterns. the desert sequence my seem unimportant to the
> Manhattan sequence
> which is well known and admired (or hated) by so many. Yet I cannot predict
> the future. I do not
> know that the desert sequence may someday bloom into a relevant reality to
> be admired and
> revered by all.
> 
> The earth used to be flat. Who would dare deny it. It also used to be center
> of the
> universe for hundreds of years. The heavier object falls faster than the
> lighter one. The
> pythagoreans were radical - no roots allowed. What was really going on here?
> It was an assault
> on creativity. Thinking WAS creativity and those in power did not want it
> undermined with new
> ideas that were conceived outside of their circles.
> 
> All numbers are interesting aren't they? Of course! We all know the
> induction proof and the
> amusing story of "after a long time plucking the numbers from U save one for
> interest's sake."
> 
> This is the same for generative sequences. There is no such thing as an
> uninteresting sequence,
> some are just more interesting than others.
> 
> It is my estimate that many of the submitters to the OEIS do it for fun and
> the joy of the EUREKA
> that follows. This was me. I was doing it for fun and the EUREKA!
> 
> I would be curious if anyone else submits sequences for fun and the joy of
> EUREKA?
> 
> CLH
> 
> 
> 

------ Fin du message transféré

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/attachments/20060107/0277efca/attachment.htm>