[seqfan] Re: Poll: Sequences Suitable For Crunchers vs. Formula Finding Algorithms

Richard Mathar mathar at strw.leidenuniv.nl
Thu Aug 26 13:39:48 CEST 2010

Back to http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/2010-August/005827.html

dm> To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
dm> Subject: [seqfan] Poll: Sequences Suitable For Crunchers vs. Formula Finding Algorithms
dm> Please consider the following two OEIS(F) searches:
dm> keyword:more -keyword:base keyword:nice keyword:hard
dm> (55 results)
dm> keyword:more -keyword:base keyword:nice -keyword:hard
dm> (205 results)

There are sequences which have no "more" - because the three standard lines
are already filled, more terms would go into a b-file, and no "core" (for
various reasons) which deserve to be extended. One of my favorites are the
A006945 Miller-Rabin terms, which from a very practical point of view provide
a "safe net" for primality testing, and can reduce computing time on a
world-wide scale.
Finding more terms is, however, not sexy, because there are 
essentially no discoveries to be made nor any prizes to be won. I guess
similar things may be said about more prominent number chases in
the Mersenne prime, aliquot sequence etc area (for which similar
applications may be missing...?) Competing with these is no fun.

So the question aside from keyword issues is: which extension would
be most beneficial from a math community point of view?


More information about the SeqFan mailing list