[seqfan] Re: Another surprising omission from OEIS
Alonso Del Arte
alonso.delarte at gmail.com
Thu Nov 12 22:17:50 CET 2009
As I wrote my previous message, sequences about base 2 were in the back of
my mind, and I thought "Maybe I should say something about them," so I say
it now: Their importance in computer applications alone more than justifies
their study. The number-theoretic study of powers of two also occasionally
benefits from considering the binary representation of the applicable
On the other hand, something like "Numbers that are palindromic in base 7
and repdigits in base 12" (a contrived example) I wouldn't care about at
all. But my lack of interest does not mean that such a sequence will or will
not be of interest to anyone besides the submitter. If I see a base uned
sequence that I can fix up, I will, even if I can't see the point of it.
It's not my place to rule on whether such sequences should or should not be
in the OEIS.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Leroy Quet <q1qq2qqq3qqqq at yahoo.com> wrote:
> With all the insults thrown at 'base' sequences in this thread, I want to
> defend base-2 'base' sequences.
> Unlike base-10, base 2 is more "natural", since it is often times the
> smallest-order base that is interesting.
> And then there are the applications of some base-2 sequences to computer
> Still, I may have inadvertently used the 'base' keyword for some of my
> binary-based sequences which are more simply defined by non-base means, a
> no-no according to an earlier post to this thread.
> Leroy Quet
> [ ( [ ([( [ ( ([[o0Oo0Ooo0Oo(0)oO0ooO0oO0o]]) ) ] )]) ] ) ]
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan