[seqfan] Re: Suggested keyword: veri

Maximilian Hasler maximilian.hasler at gmail.com
Sun Apr 12 23:24:21 CEST 2009

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:05 PM,  <franktaw at netscape.net> wrote:
> Yes, but there are 150,000 sequences there, and only a handful have any
> such entry.  The vast majority of them are machine-calculated, and
> checking them is mostly a waste of time.  What this keyword would do is
> to let someone willing to do such checking know where such efforts
> might profitably be employed.
> I recognize that, with the current effort towards a Wiki OEIS, this
> isn't going to happen right away.  I'll see what it looks like in that
> incarnation, and then perhaps make a new proposal.

The "needs/should/must/can/to be checked" keywords are already implemented:
(remove the "should" to enlarge the search).

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Robert G. Wilson, v <rgwv at rgwv.com> wrote:
> Neil suggested several years ago that any one who verified the sequence in
> question do so by using the %Edit line with the method employed. Example
> Entries verified by ??? using the supplied Mmca coding.

When I contribute a PARI program for an existing sequence, this
tacitly implies that I used it to verify the terms - at least up to
what can be obtained with a reasonable amount of CPU time.
(and BTW the advantage of PARI over Maple or Mmca is that anyone
really interested can download & unpack PARI in a few minutes (for
free), and run the code himself).

I think the same can be assumed for most submitted programs.

Reciprocally, I most often contribute the code when I wrote some (even
if it's not always/often easy to read...).
I think this is really an important feature of OEIS - in part exactly
because it makes the sequence verifiable and reproducible. At worst,
if the numbers are not correct, one can understand to what they
correspond, and make adequate corrections (to the code and numbers, or
to the definition, if adequate [in case of new "original" sequences]).

OTOH, if not all terms of the sequence can be obtained within a
reasonable time limit, then usually the sequence has been studied
elsewhere and the given links or references can be used to "verify"
(to some extend) the entries.
[I think of sequences related to very large primes, sporadic solutions, etc...]

For the remaining cases, I agree that a comment could be in order.
(Whether %E or %C seems not crucial.)


More information about the SeqFan mailing list