[seqfan] Re: Suggested keyword: veri

Hugo van der Sanden human at google.com
Tue Apr 14 16:02:49 CEST 2009

2009/4/12 <franktaw at netscape.net>

> 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. [snip]

I disagree that verifying machine-calculated values is a waste of time:
there may be bugs in the programs we write to calculate; there may be bugs
in the maths packages we take advantage of; there may be bugs at the
firmware or hardware level (the well-publicised Intel division bug is by no
means the only example).

Of course, verification is by no means the only priority for OEIS, and most
people would find it quite boring; however, of the things so far discussed
in this thread, most useful to me seems to be something that indicates a)
that some specified person has verified the values; b) which values they
verified (and please don't say "all", since that becomes a lie as soon as
someone adds another value); c) how they did it (in particular, whether they
re-ran the existing programme or wrote a new one).

Since we have an existing mechanism to record this that's capable of
capturing all this information, all we need to do is get in the habit of
using it. :)


More information about the SeqFan mailing list