[seqfan] Re: editing question

[Charles Greathouse]

I would be interested in seeing a style guide.  In fact, let me know
if you need a hand with it -- I'd be happy to lend a hand.

Charles Greathouse
Analyst/Programmer
Case Western Reserve University

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Douglas McNeil <mcneil at hku.hk> wrote:
> (1) What's the policy on long lists in comments?  For example (abbreviated):
>
> %S A176983 2,5,7,13,17,37,47,67,73,103,137,163,167,193,233,281,293,313,317,347,
> %T A176983 373,389,421,439,461,463,487,499,503,547
> %N A176983 Primes p such that smallest prime q > p^2 is of form q = p^2+n^2.
> %C A176983 Fermat's theorem asserts that an odd prime q can be
> expressed (uniquely) as sum of two squares:
> %C A176983 q = p^2 + n^2 with integers p and n if and only if q is
> congruent to 1 (mod 4), i.e. Pythagorean primes
> %C A176983 Square of each prime p is congruent to 1 (mod 4) as p = 4 *
> k + 1 or p = 4 * k + 3
> %C A176983 List of p^2+n^2=q
> %C A176983 2^2+1^2=5, 5^2+2^2=29, 7^2+2^2=53, 13^2+2^2=173, 17^2+2^2=293,
> %C A176983 37^2+2^2=1373, 47^2+2^2=2213, 67^2+2^2=4493, 73^2+2^2=5333,
> 103^2+2^2=10613,
> %C A176983 137^2+2^2=18773, 163^2+2^2=26573, 167^2+2^2=27893,
> 193^2+2^2=37253, 233^2 +2^2=54293,
> %C A176983 281^2+4^2=78977, 293^2 +2^2=85853, 313^2 +2^2=97973, 317^2
> +2^2=100493, 347^2 +2^2=120413,
> %C A176983 373^2 +2^2=139133, 389^2+4^2=151337, 421^2+4^2=177257,
> 439^2+4^2=192737, 461^2+6^2=212557,
> %C A176983 463^2+2^2=214373, 487^2+2^2=237173, 499^2+4^2=249017,
> 503^2+2^2=253013, 547^2+2^2=299213
> %e A176983 2^2+1^2=5=prime(3), 2=prime(1) is 1st term, trivially the
> only with n=1
> %e A176983 281^2+4^2=78977=prime(7744), 281=prime(60) is (4^2)th term,
> first with n=4
> %e A176983 461^2+6^2=212557=prime(19013), 461=prime(89) is (5^2)th
> term, first with n=6
>
> There are several terms missing and I was going to add them (and
> correct the indices in the examples), but then I realized for
> consistency I'd have to add the decompositions to the list, and I
> don't see the point of the list in the first place.
>
> If a sequence is hard, and the specifics involved in generating a term
> are hard to reproduce that's one thing; if the sequence is short and
> finite and so you can say everything there is to say with such a list,
> maybe that's another.  But when it takes more time to type in the
> one-liner which will reproduce it than it does to execute it, I don't
> really get it.  But I don't like to remove someone else's work unless
> it's manifestly wrong.
>
> (2) Is there any interest in combining the handful of OEIS classic
> documents and folk wisdom of the mailing list into an informal style
> guide?  No guide could cover all cases, and there are always reasons
> to break standards (practicality beats purity, as they say), but a
> reference could be helpful.
>
> See two recent independent threads on concatenation, about the meaning
> of, and ways to spell..
>
>
> Doug
>
> --
> Department of Earth Sciences
> University of Hong Kong
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>