Mathematically defined sequences

[Hans Havermann]

Henry Gould:

> ... These matters like some other recreational sequences are just  
> too vague for my taste. Likewise the planet numbers, atomic  
> weights, binding energies, etc. and most physical constants. They  
> just do not belong in OEIS, which ought to be concerned with  
> validly defined MATHEMATICAL sequences, not artificially contrived  
> and religious numbers...

Sure. But even with validly defined MATHEMATICAL sequences we've  
heard differences of opinion on which sequences are more, or less,  
worthy. At present the OEIS welcome page suggests only that "the  
number sequence should be well-defined, of general interest and  
ideally it should be infinite."

I think that's as it should be: A broad definition for broad appeal.

Most of the aforementioned sequences fail because they are not well- 
defined or infinite. They are most certainly of general interest.

I collect music on my computer and I try to maintain it as a  
database: Basically, a small number of "tags" to identify it in time  
and space and an effort to avoid "duplicates" (not as easy as it  
might seem). I've suffered from all the aches and pains that any  
obsessive/compulsive collector/organizer of information must  
necessarily endure: The limitations of personal inclination and  
somewhat arbitrary categorization to capture some essence of a large,  
complex, moving body. Cutting the arms and legs from that body would  
certainly help but, in my mind, it's not a trophy worth having.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/attachments/20060926/ba0388a9/attachment-0003.htm>