A126200 more,nonn,uned,obsc

[Dean Hickerson]

Mostly to zak seidov:

> I think, the shortest way to "clarification"
> is to add "Not-triangular" in definition as this:
> 
> %N A126200 Not-triangular numbers n such that n^2 is a
> sum of consecutive cubes.

But the sequence contains 8778 and 10296, which are triangular, presumably
because each of those has an additional representation besides the one that
works for all squares of triangular numbers:  8778 = 144^3 + ... + 164^3,
10296 = 133^3 + ... + 164^3.  So I think the real definition is "Numbers n
such that n^2 is a sum of cubes of consecutive integers larger than 1".
Is that what you intended?

> And Neil, plz remove this ugly tags uned, obsc...

If you, the sequence's author, aren't sure how it should be defined, then
I think that "obscure" is accurate...

> In general, I think it'd be considered as compulsory 
> to commentators and editiors to CC their mess'es to authors.

Having dealt with some authors who get upset when anyone edits their
sequences, I disagree.  As editors, our goal is to make the OEIS as
accurate as possible, whether the authors like the changes or not.
Often getting clarification from the author is the easiest way to fix
things, but I don't think it should be compulsory.

Dean Hickerson
dean at math.ucdavis.edu



- Today I sent out a message asking people to be selective and
not to send in uninteresting sequences.

I should have added that if you see a sequence in an article, book
or web site, that is usually enough to justify sending it in.
Published sequences are usually worth including.

- I have about 900 "Comments" to process - I am working on them.

But in the next three months I will have less time than
usual to work on the OEIS. Please be patient.

- The problem with lost submissions, caused by a problem
in getting email from the machine outside the firewall 
to the local machine may have been fixed.

Even on Friday some pre-numbered sequences sent in via the web
Others of course may never have reached me.  (I haven't 
processed new sequences for several days.)  But maybe this
problem has been fixed.  Tell me if
you don't get the automatic acknowledgement or if it arrives
only after several hours!

- Should the associate editors tell authors that changes
are being made to their sequences?  On this I agree with
Dean - of course it is courteous to do so, and sometimes
it is essential if the sequence is unclear - but it is not
necessary.

I do a huge amount of editing without consulting the authors,
in fact probably 75% of the submissions get edited.
Usually this is to correct grammar, spelling, punctuation,
poor English, sloppy thinking, typos, badly phrased
consult the author, and indeed there would be no point
in doing so!