[seqfan] Re: Another surprising omission from OEIS

[Maximilian Hasler]

> in some vague sense from 3 to 1).  A167389 is a real example of this:
> though not base-dependent, it seems to be an entirely arbitrary
> function
> (argument(exp(-(ln(2)+W(n,-(1/2)*ln(2)))/ln(2)))*ln(2)+Im(W(n,-(1/2)*ln(2))))/(2*Pi*ln(2))

anyway, if I see

(..(exp(-ln(2)+...)/ln(2)))*ln(2)+...

then I already have some prejudice...

"argument(...)/2pi"  does not improve anything ...

IMO that's complete nonsense, but of course I might be wrong...

Whatsoever, I think it is insulting to "submit" such a thing and let
tens or hundreds of people try their best in making a sense of it.

Maximilian