[seqfan] Re: LRS formulas for n>=...?
franktaw at netscape.net
franktaw at netscape.net
Sun Aug 2 22:20:32 CEST 2009
It is really important not to put flat statements into the OEIS when
you can't prove them. Write "It appears that" or "Apparently" or
"Conjecture:" (or some other appropriate formulation). Yes, use your
judgment to decide whether to include the statement in the first place,
but ALWAYS mark it in this way if it is not proven, however sure you
are empirically.
(I tend to use "It appears that" or "Apparently" when I'm pretty sure,
empirically; "Conjecture:" when I'm less certain but consider the
conjecture important enough to be worth including, anyhow. I can't
claim to have been completely consistent about this, however.)
Incidentally, if you have a proof in or based on a published paper, be
sure to include a reference and/or link to that paper in the sequence.
Franklin T. Adams-Watters
-----Original Message-----
From: rhhardin at att.net
Of course that automatic detection is what I would be doing, if I
included
the recurrence, because I detect it automatically as well. (The actual
calculation for my series is essentially brute force enumeration.)
But surely unverified truth turns up all over; somebody enumerates out
a series, and somebody else comes up with the same series on a different
problem, and so adds a comment rather than submit his series, even if he
has fewer terms; or he may add terms as well as the comment.
Now there are two problems with the same series, and the series is
extended
by either problem, without anybody checking it applies for the other.
I think you have to just judge the odds: how many terms with how many
digits, and what are the chances this is accidental.
If your judgment is good, it works for both problems.
The real difficulty is can you automatically judge the chances.
More information about the SeqFan
mailing list