Roger Bagula's A119565

[Dean Hickerson]

John Layman wrote:

> I looked at this sequence shortly after it appeared.  I found that the
> sequence was not generated by the given formula, and could see no reason
> to call it chaotic or prime-like.  As a general rule, I feel that any
> sequence (by any author) with this many defects could simple be deleted.

I agree.  I think that we waste a lot of time fixing sequences that have
major defects; in such cases we should just have the authors fix them, or
delete them if the authors won't.  That way we'd have more time to work on
good sequences that just need minor improvements.

The only reason I can think of to spend time cleaning up badly-formatted
sequences is to help their authors learn what to do differently.  That
sometimes works.  But often when I've done that I've gotten a polite
"thank you" from the author, who then continues to send equally bad
sequences.  (Fortunately, there aren't very many authors who send impolite
replies.)

Dean Hickerson
dean at math.ucdavis.edu