possiby double

Wed Jun 13 18:17:04 CEST 2007

sequences?
Me:  do you have proofs for these facts?  Or are they empirical
Return-Path: <njas at research.att.com>
X-Ids: 166
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:56:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "N. J. A. Sloane" <njas at research.att.com>
Message-Id: <200706131656.l5DGuQfx17615163 at fry.research.att.com>
To: <qq-quet at mindspring.com>, <qq-quet at mindspring.com>,
   <seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr>, <njas at research.att.com>,
   Leroy Quet <qq-quet at mindspring.com>
Subject: Re:  Avoiding Duplicate Sequences: Idea
Cc: njas at research.att.com
Reply-To: njas at research.att.com
X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.166]); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:56:34 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.7/3413/Wed Jun 13 16:37:22 2007 on shiva.jussieu.fr
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 467021C1.001 on shiva.jussieu.fr : j-chkmail score : X : 0/50 0 0.583 -> 1
X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 467021C1.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
send comments, formulae, cross-references, always
Return-Path: <israel at math.ubc.ca>
X-Ids: 164
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Israel <israel at math.ubc.ca>
To: "N. J. A. Sloane" <njas at research.att.com>
cc: Leroy Quet <qq-quet at mindspring.com>, Leroy Quet <qq-quet at mindspring.com>,
   seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr, Leroy Quet <qq-quet at mindspring.com>
Subject: Re:  Avoiding Duplicate Sequences: Idea
In-Reply-To: <200706131656.l5DGuQfx17615163 at fry.research.att.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0706131018440.28122 at hilbert.math.ubc.ca>
References: <200706131656.l5DGuQfx17615163 at fry.research.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.164]); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:34:05 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.7/3413/Wed Jun 13 16:37:22 2007 on shiva.jussieu.fr
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 46702A8C.000 on shiva.jussieu.fr : j-chkmail score : X : 0/50 0 0.516 -> 1
X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 46702A8C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, N. J. A. Sloane wrote:

> The trouble with Leroy's suggestion is this:
>
> Most users of the OEIS don't know what a "proof" is.
> For the average user, the fact that two sequences
> agree for a while means they really are the same.
> The concept of mathematical proof is Sanskrit to
> most people.
>
> So asking someone if their sequence is the same
> as another sequence won't do any good.

Of course, many people may not be able to prove whether their
sequence really is the same as the other one (maybe not even
if they are very good theorem-provers), but I don't think
that's the intent of Leroy's idea.  It's not designed to prevent
duplication completely, but it could filter out many of the
more obvious duplicates.  The message should be phrased in such
a way that it doesn't unduly discourage someone who isn't
absolutely sure.

Cheers,
Robert Israel

Neil wrote:
>> The trouble with Leroy's suggestion is this:
>>
>> Most users of the OEIS don't know what a "proof" is.
>> For the average user, the fact that two sequences
>> agree for a while means they really are the same.
>> The concept of mathematical proof is Sanskrit to
>> most people.
>>
>> So asking someone if their sequence is the same
>> as another sequence won't do any good.
>
Robert wrote:
>Of course, many people may not be able to prove whether their
>sequence really is the same as the other one (maybe not even
>if they are very good theorem-provers), but I don't think
>that's the intent of Leroy's idea.  It's not designed to prevent
>duplication completely, but it could filter out many of the
>more obvious duplicates.  The message should be phrased in such
>a way that it doesn't unduly discourage someone who isn't
>absolutely sure.
>

I agree with Neil that people can often assume that, because two 

And I agree with Robert too.

What concerns me about this, however, is that some sequence/comment 
can be defined in another way, when (in fact) the commented-on sequence 
and the sequence defined in the comment may be different sequences.

I propose that it be made absolutely clear on the submission/comment page 
that claims about a sequence be absolutely certain (and in a more visible 
way than the current statement about the EIS being at the standards of a 
mathematical journal). And it should probably state explicitly that just 
because two sequences agree for the number of terms given, then that 
doesn't mean the sequences are necessarily the same.

Thanks,
Leroy Quet

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3264608907_79478_MIME_Part

---------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps a "Comment on this sequence" link could be added [...]

--MS_Mac_OE_3264608907_79478_MIME_Part

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Avoiding misidentified comments/extensions:  idea</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
proposal is a very good idea!<BR>
ist and encourage comments on sequences.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
---------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
<B>From: </B>jonscho at hiwaay.net<BR>
<B>Date: </B>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:16:03 -0500 (CDT)<BR>
<B>To: </B>njas at research.att.com<BR>
<B>Cc: </B>seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr<BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Avoiding misidentified comments/extensions:  idea<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps a "Comment on this sequence" link could be added [...]</F=
ONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--MS_Mac_OE_3264608907_79478_MIME_Part--