[seqfan] Re: nice base-dependent sequence

[Joerg Arndt]

I am inclined to warrant the "hard" keyword if a faster
algorithm would need research (else we'd need to remove
that keyword from _a_lot_ of seqs).


* franktaw at netscape.net <franktaw at netscape.net> [May 29. 2010 13:41]:
> I don't think the "hard" keyword should be given just because the known 
> algorithms are all slow. The sequence should be provably hard, or at 
> least there should be some good evidence for its difficulty (i.e., 
> factorization).
> 
> Franklin T. Adams-Watters
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Havermann <pxp at rogers.com>
> 
> > Anyone care to produce a b-file?
> 
> I think this will be a tough road. Perhaps the sequence even deserves
> a "hard". Term #38 is 11525580.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/