[seqfan] Re: Policy on near-duplicates

[Max Alekseyev]

I support this idea, assuming that the main entry in an "equivalence
class" of near-duplicates is clearly indicated.
I think that all information that is applicable to every sequence in
the class should be concentrated in the main entry only (that would
simplify editing/updating/extending this information in a single
place).
Ideally, the other (non-main) entries in each class should be kept
minimalistic and marked with the "dead" or "dupe" keyword (indicating
that they are permanent in their current form) - since their purpose
is only referencing to the main entry.

Regards,
Max

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:45 PM, N. J. A. Sloane <njas at research.att.com> wrote:
>
> If there are 2 sequences in the OEIS which are different
> but closely related (for example, one might be obtained
> by adding 1 to every term of the other), then we keep both,
> but provide cross-references.
>
> The main reason is that (obviously) there are two schools
> of though about which is the best version.
>
> Also my preference is to keep a sequence once it is in the OEIS,
> unless it is wrong.
>
> Neil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>