[seqfan] Re: Eventually-signed sequences

[Rick Shepherd]

Oops:  Of course, I meant -keyword:sign  (my typo and/or "mindo", Charles!)

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Rick Shepherd <rlshepherd2 at gmail.com>wrote:

> It's useful to be able to do -keyword:nonn because the default search on,
> say,
>
> 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
>
> returns lots of sequences such as A022993, where the matches (in this
> order) are
> only on negative terms.
>
> If you know you're looking only for strictly increasing sequences....
>
> Rick
>   On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Charles Greathouse <
> charles.greathouse at case.edu> wrote:
>
>> I think that if sign and nonn refer only to the initial terms in the
>> STU/VWX lines then there's really no value.  But if they refer to the
>> entire sequence, there's surely some value, just like ,mult,.
>>
>> Does anyone use these in their searches?  I will on occasion, but
>> rarely compared to other keywords like base.
>>
>> Charles Greathouse
>> Analyst/Programmer
>> Case Western Reserve University
>>
>>  On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Alonso Del Arte
>> <alonso.delarte at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > So you're saying that nonn and sign no longer serve any purpose, either
>> for
>> > humans looking at the OEIS or for the computers handling the OEIS
>> (whether
>> > server-side or client-side)?
>> >
>> > I think that if nothing else, those two keywords have value as a
>> tradition.
>> >
>> > Al
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 8:37 PM, <franktaw at netscape.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well, I didn't say that that was what I thought the policy should be,
>> >> just that that is what it is. I didn't make the policy; Neil did.
>> >>
>> >> My personal opinion is that these keywords should be removed. The
>> >> program to process submissions can just as easily examine the sequence
>> >> to see whether there are any negative terms -- to decide whether to add
>> >> %V, %W, and %X lines -- and I don't see any other real use for them.
>> >>
>> >> Franklin T. Adams-Watters
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Alonso Del Arte <alonso.delarte at gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> The policy as described by Franklin certainly makes it easy to handle
>> >> sequences for which we are not certain that they do or do not contain
>> >> negative numbers. Still, I think it would be better for the sign
>> >> keyword to
>> >> apply even if no negative terms are "visible," and for sequences of
>> >> unknown
>> >> status to go off the best thinking on the subject (e.g., in the case of
>> >> A086811, since H. Moller who wrote the paper cited for that sequence
>> >> thinks
>> >> it contains no negative terms, it should be nonn rather than sign).
>> >>
>> >> Just my two cents,
>> >> Al
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 7:28 PM, <franktaw at netscape.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The policy has long been that the sequence should have the "sign"
>> >> > keyword if there are negative values entered in the sequence -- that
>> >> > is, in the %V, %W, and %X lines.  So your 85 examples below should be
>> >> > "nonn".  It looks like your 20 "nonn" sequences with negative values
>> >> > have them only in b-files or other extension, so they are correct.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  _______________________________________________
>> >>
>> >> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>> > Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>>
>
>