request for advice

[Joerg Arndt]

my comments interlaced

* Creighton Dement <crowdog at crowdog.de> [Mar 11. 2006 15:37]:
> Dear Neil and Seqfans, 
> 
> In my opinion, there's a difference between fun sequences which make you
> laugh or smile (such as
> http://public.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A056064 or
> http://public.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A096582  ) and just plain
> stupid sequences. After  all, it is called the  "Online Encyclopedia.."
> and not the "Online Journal..." and it would seem just about every
> encyclopedia I've ever looked into has a (presumably smaller) section
> with fun/playful facts.  I suggest the keyword PLAY instead of DUMB. and

The two sequences actually made me smile.
If the whole database doesn't contain more than, say, 20 of these
then I am fine.
Still mathematical fun is preferred: id:A065428

> 
> 1. Only 1 PLAY sequence submission (rule holds for everyone) per day.

Consider the workload!
Suggest max one every month and it should be discussed on the list.


> 2. PLAY sequences pass automatically into the database (or some
> "adjacent" database)

OMG!, no!


> 3. PLAY sequences are ignored by SuperSeeker, etc. 

Half-rotten database that needs tweaks to work with?
Again, pretty please: no.

Overrule the following complications by
"KEEP THE DATABASE CLEAN BY ALL MEANS".
(And I hate screaming!).

>  
> Of course, there is a slight problem: someone may not agree that his
> particular sequence is a playful sequence... in that case, how about
> this (perhaps overly strict) "definition":
> 
> - a sequence is of type PLAY if it references no sequence of type
> "NICE". 
> or (less stringent) 
> - a sequence is of type PLAY if it references no sequence which has not
> been contributed to by at least 2 authors. 
> 
> The above "definition" would presumably only need to be invoked in case
> of a dispute with the author. Sure, an author can articially claim that
> his sequence relates to a nice sequence- but that is perhaps easier for
> an outside observer such as Neil to judge.
> 
> Sincerely, 
> Creighton 
> 

I'd suggest that we have a mechanism to propose that a certein seq
should be killed.  E.g. those very annoying spurious hits as
x in a(n) iff n times 42 followed by 43 is prime (yuck!!!).

Very many radix-10 dependent seqs should be killed IMHO.
Same with "random application of sigma(), nu(), et.al."
Same with seqs using ad-hoc terms in their definition.

Random try: 
id:A101000 should die (Numbers n such that (820*10^n + 71)/9 is a prime)
id:A101001 should die
...
id:A101010 should die (Numbers n such that (860*10^n - 23)/9 is prime)
seems to go on forever.
Stuff like that _kills_ the OEIS.
One of those seqs and a link to the rest is enough!

I urge to be very, very, very conservative about admission of seqs.

And then, NJAS takes the workload and obviously has the final word.

jj, leaving for a beer now