[seqfan] Re: detective work related to Creighton Dement's "Floretions"

[franktaw at netscape.net]

I don't think Robert was saying that floretions are worthless.  I doubt 
that he would have done so much (detective) work on them if he thought 
they were worthless.

But, in the absence of reasonable documentation, they aren't of much 
use to the rest of us.  My usual reaction to one of Creighton's notes 
in this group is MEGO (my eyes glaze over).  There needs to be:

1) A permanent web site explaining all the notation and computations.  
(There ought to be someplace to put such documentation in the Wiki 
OEIS.)

2) A link from every floretion-generated sequence to this web site.

3) The calculation used for the sequence needs to be in every such 
sequence.

If that was done, I might think it worth my time to look into it.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Antti Karttunen <antti.karttunen at gmail.com>
To: seqfan at list.seqfan.eu
Sent: Thu, Nov 19, 2009 11:54 am
Subject: [seqfan] Re: detective work related to Creighton Dement's 
"Floretions"


On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:19:12 Robert Munafo <mrob27 at gmail.com> wrote
about Floretions.
...

I say:

Yes, Creighton has (so far) documented his system quite poorly, and thus
it remains quite obscure. However, that doesn't make it worthless. On 
the
contrary,
the system seems to be able to generate many "hits" to diverse fields
of mathematics. See e.g.:
http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=author%3Adement+extension%3A

http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=author%3Adement+ref%3A

(I think this is much more worthwhile than just random playing with 
decimal
digits,
although I'm neither castigating clever base-related sequences.)
...

Yours,

Antti Karttunen