Non-mathematical sequences

[franktaw at netscape.net]

This will probably be my last posting on this topic; I don't think it's 
really very
productive.  But I thought I should explain what I meant and why I 
posted my
list in the first place.

First of all, by "non-mathematical" I don't mean "having nothing to do 
with
mathematics", but something closer to "not fully definable in purely
mathematical terms" - where "by us" is to be understood.  As a first
approximation, sequences whose definition refers to the physical world
(including cultural aspects, such as calendars) are included in the 
list.  Another
way of putting this is, a non-mathematical  sequence is one where, if 
the
universe was different, the sequence would be different.  I did not 
include a
number of sequences of the number of compounds of some type, since, in
my opinion, the chemists have really abstracted to the equivalent graph-
theoretic definition in creating these sequences.

(Inevitably, in making any sort of judgement like this, there are 
borderline cases.
You should not feel that you don't understand the meaning of a concept
just because there are cases where you are unsure of how to apply it.  
Even
purely mathematical concepts get expanded to new areas, in ways that 
may
not be immediately obvious.  Consider the extension of "prime" to 
"prime
ideals";
with some understanding of the theory, the extension is obvious, but 
just
from the definition it is not.)

-----
I compiled and posted this list with the idea that these sequences 
should be
identified by a keyword.  I got an email from Neil, saying that that 
might be a
good idea, but he has no time to do anything like that now.  My hope 
would
be that having a keyword for this would stop (or at least greatly 
reduce)
people complaining that this kind of sequence does not belong in the 
OEIS.
At minimum, it would give us a quick answer to such complaints.  I 
really don't
think that an index entry would accomplish this.

-----
Can the Universe be explained by equations?  That is very much an open
question, one that various philosophers and scientists debate.  
Ultimately, it's
one of those things that we can never know for sure.  Certainly, the 
Universe
can be approximated by equations, but that is not the same thing.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: hillcino368 at hotmail.com
 
>From: <ferdiego at cox.net> 
>To: cino hilliard <hillcino368 at hotmail.com, seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr 
> 
>Base is a well renown sequence that it's been published and known for
>years. 
> 
>Now, about non-math sequences, they are fewer than you think, since 
math is
>everywhere. 
 
Yes. In my opinion 0 is the best approx. 
 
Even the Universe can be explained with equations. 
 
Show me. 

________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and 
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.