[seqfan] Re: Another surprising omission from OEIS

[Charles Greathouse]

I feel similarly about ,base, sequences -- not interesting to me.

The keyword is used when there is a fixed base and not used when all
bases are involved.  I'm not sure if it's used for unusual
representations like factorial base -- any thoughts?  A quick search
for 'phinary' shows a lack of uniformity.

Charles Greathouse
Analyst/Programmer
Case Western Reserve University

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Andrew Weimholt
<andrew.weimholt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Alonso Del Arte
> <alonso.delarte at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The title of this thread has bothered me since I read the first post in it.
>> I think the reason is that I don't find the omission of a keyword:base
>> sequence surprising at all. Most math amateurs, if they stick to it,
>> eventually lose interest in base sequences. Most professional mathematicians
>> probably feel that they must specialize in the topic of radix representation
>> if they're going to give it any significant portion of their time. Modular
>> arithmetic, on the other hand, is so fundamental to number theory that the
>> absence of the orderly numbers from the OEIS for so long I do find genuinely
>> surprising. Well, that's just my opinion, for what it's worth.
>>
>> Al
>
> I don't find "base" sequences as interesting either, especially when
> only one base (usually base 10) is considered.
> I feel that if you are going to look for numbers with certain
> syntactical properties (such as repdigits, palindromes, etc) then why
> not do the search in all bases.
>
> By the way, my interpretation of the "base" keyword (Neil, correct me
> if I am wrong) is that it applies to sequences which use a single base
> in their definition (so that if you change the base, the sequence will
> contain a different set of terms). Sequences which cover all the bases
> are not really "base" sequences (which is why I didn't add the "base"
> keyword to these submissions).
> The OEIS help file for keywords says "base: dependent on base used for
> sequence", which seems to support my interpretation.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>