[seqfan] The "down-rated" comment

Robert Munafo mrob27 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 21 04:40:40 CET 2009

I wrote (emphasis added here):

> I spent a few hours in Sloandora collecting these results. It found a lot
> of sequences that were authored by Creighton Dement but have nothing to do
> with his floretion work. After a while I started down-rating sequences like
> A100545 and A113166 that *say they were floretion-generated but provide no
> further clues about the floretion definition or algorithm*.

Creighton wrote (*emphasis is mine*):

> A100545 was explained in my last post. A113166 is another one of my
> favorite sequences. I have already explained how this sequence was
> generated. See
>    http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/a113166.txt
> *You won't find a direct reference to floretions there, but floretion
> multiplication was used* (it's just a matter of me looking back up which
> floretions were involved and I will do that). Refer also to the text
> directly following proposition 2.5 in the draft paper.
That's exactly what I meant*. The definition you give (in terms of necklaces
with beads of two colors) does not use floretion algorithms at all. And
since there is no floretion formula, I don't consider A113166 to be useful
for figuring out the floretion algorithms. I was "up-rating" only those
sequences that helped answer the original task of trying to learn about
floretions. (For new readers: I was using software that finds OEIS entries
based on how closely they resemble other entries that have been given higher

I do NOT think we should be deleting any more information from these
sequences. Let's figure out how to define the formulas and how to get the
right answer out of the formulas, and then add that information somewhere!

Creighton wrote:

> As for ambiguities in my (older) sequences, I see two cases:
> 1. Minor ambiguity: Here (see, for ex. A107849 or A113166) the sequence is
> properly defined without using floretions but some reference or comment is
> made that either the idea for the sequence came from floretions or code is
> present which cannot be directly executed.
> Quick solution (though very unfortunate and I apologize if this is
> time-consuming): Remove the code and/or references to floretions.
> 2. "Major ambiguity" (rare, such as the themesong sequence or the very
> first batch of sequences I ever submitted)
> Quick solution: delete the sequence (it was probably only a representative
> sequence taken from a batch of hundreds of others- and I can still
> reconstruct the process, pick another representative, and submit all
> documentation at a later time)

 Robert Munafo  --  mrob.com

More information about the SeqFan mailing list