request for advice

[Graeme McRae]

All new sequences should be checked against the superseeker.  If the 
sequence is a simple function of another sequence (like n for which 3n+1 
belongs to Axxxxx) and the superseeker *doesn't* find it, then rather than 
submitting (or accepting, if submitted) a new sequence, this should form the 
basis of a suggestion to improve the superseeker.  On the other hand, if the 
superseeker does find your new sequence, but the interesting connection 
between your new sequence and the existing ones found by superseeker is 
missing, then the person should submit a comment for the existing sequence.

Who should do all this "goo-diligence" (computerized fact-checking)? 
Certainly not NJAS.  Instead, the person who expects to submit a new 
sequence should do the checking, and obtain some evidence, such as a code 
number that could be generated by the superseeker, and then automatically 
checked against the terms of the sequence after it is submitted.

What if a new sequence is found by superseeker (and thus, on its face, 
ineligible for inclusion in the database) and yet more basic or more 
fundamental in some important way than -- or perhaps completely unrelated 
to -- the sequences found by superseeker?  The submitter should have a way 
of describing this in a request to include this new sequence in the database 
in spite of its apparent duplication.

--Graeme

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "A.N.W.Hone"
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: request for advice


> If superseeker can generate the sequences defined by
> these sorts of rules, then there's no reason to include them
> in the database.
>
> Best wishes,
> Andy Hone
>