[seqfan] Re: Sequence: "Number of sequences in the OEIS at the end of each year since 1964?"

Alonso Del Arte alonso.delarte at gmail.com
Tue Jan 26 17:10:26 CET 2010

There has always been a very high bar for sequences that refer to the OEIS
itself, and one of the criteria is that the sequence can be defined with
mathematical and/or logical precision. So, "Numbers n such that OEIS
sequence A_n contains n" is in, even though it involves the occasional
paradox, but "Number of sequences in the OEIS at the end of each year since
1964" is out since it involves a lot of estimates. But those kinds of
estimates would be right at home in a page about the history of the OEIS.

In my opinion, the best thing here would be to add a chart to the "Timeline
of the OEIS" article sampled at discrete points, such as January 1st of each
year, as Robert suggested earlier, or December 31st, as Daniel suggests. The
file LOG.txt, still available in Neil's AT & T website, seems to have
sufficient information to create such a chart accurately after 1998. My
predictions for A200000 and A1000000 may need to be revised.


On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Robert Munafo <mrob27 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think he wants to define it as a sequence. I think this is just a
> follow-on to the history-log discussion from last week.
> LOG.txt has a lot of info for the last 15 years but it would be fun to
> learn
> more about the previous 30 years.
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 01:01, N. J. A. Sloane <njas at research.att.com
> >wrote:
> > the oeis is supposed to be a scientific database, so that is a sequence
> > i have always deplored!
> >
> > neil
> >
> --
>  Robert Munafo  --  mrob.com
> _______________________________________________
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/

More information about the SeqFan mailing list