comments on A001835, A004253, A001653

[Mitch Harris]

> From: Tanya Khovanova [mailto:tanyakh at TanyaKhovanova.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:28 PM
>
> Hello seqfans,
>
> I've noticed (and proved) that ...
...
> My question is - if this comment is not present in the
> sequences should I assume that this is something new?

No, you should not assume that. The OEIS is, intentionally, a work in
progress so there is no presumption of completeness.

> If it is something new what is the standard way to publish small
> results like this?

Currently, mathematical culture doesn't really recognize a fact (a
theorem, an identity, a construction) as credit worthy unless it is
supplied with a proof. The OEIS does not have an appropriate format
for giving proofs for such small results, unless the proof is a
one-liner, and if so, it is probably already known/not that big a deal
(notice my weasel words here).

It is troublesome that in mathematics publishing, there seems to be no
outlet for mini-results to be made public by people outside of a
specialty. Professionals have their textbooks (where a small result
can be presented as an 'exercise for the reader'), or can slip their
smaller results into bigger papers in their own field, or can get away
with being credited with '[by private communication]'.

That said, I think one sideways way of making a small result public
and creditworthy is to submit it to a journal with a 'Problems'
section or 'Small Notes' section. The American Mathematical Monthly or
Mathematics Magazine have these (hmmm.. thre's got to be others that
are just slipping my mind).

One can always publish on the web, but that has the drawback (with
respect to credit)  that it is self-published (i.e. not peer-reviewed)
and much more liable to 'borrowing', and so not deemed as
creditworthy.

-- 
Mitch Harris



I must issue a word of warning, especially if seq.fan moves to Google 
Groups or the like (or if the email list is kept in addition to having a 
newsgroup for seq.fan).

First, Google Groups (at least) requires, in order for you to post (but 
not to read) to it, that you submit your email address, which ends up 
being published along with your posted messages.
(Don't be fooled by the truncated versions of posters' email addresses 
that appear with their posts. The full email addresses appear at other 
newsgroup portal sites, at least as of when I last checked, which was 
about a year ago.)

Second, I am sure that spammers and virus writers would just LOVE to post 
to seq.fan. I think keeping them away would be a very technical problem 
if seq.fan became a newsgroup.

Third, if the goal is to keep away unworthy messages, then have a look at 
accessed by any web-based newsgroup portal or newsreader without a 
moderator). PURE NUTCASE RUBBISH! (Plus the undesirable flame-wars I 
could do without). I tell you now, as a light reader of sci.math, even 
mathematics in comparison to much of the (often off-topic) crap posted to 
mostly high-quality, or at least on-topic, posts).
Seq.fan probably should be highly selective about who it allows to post. 
(Yet I actually think that every poster that currently posts to seq.fan 
these, I say again, are a joy to read as compared to who might be tempted 
to subscribe if seq.fan goes more public.)

Thanks, sorry about my technical ignorance of the web,
Leroy Quet