[seqfan] Re: Q regarding self-attribution with formulas

Robert Munafo mrob27 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 30 20:37:29 CET 2010

I think reviewers (or editors or whatever they're called) should look at the
history, make the judgment call and when the material is suspect, ask the
submitter or the community, or tag the material as suspect if that seems
appropriate. That's the reviewer's job.

Just like in Wikipedia, where most of the readers don't know about all the
debates about content that happen for a typical article, but the debates can
be readily seen by looking at the history and talk pages.

I would love it if we would "vote down" trivial material based on topics of
interest. I would personally down-rate all the "decimal expansion of
1/<integer>" sequences that appeared in 1996, and anything base-related,
like A125484.

Fortunately my Sloandora system (
http://mrob.com/pub/math/sloandora/index.html) allows me to do exactly that.

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:06, Jack Brennen wrote:
> The content isn't enough.  What if the comment is:
>    - The next term, if it exists, has at least 425 digits
> There are some people from whom I would take this as an
> undisputed fact, and then there are some others...
> Prejudice isn't necessarily a bad thing. [...]

On 11/29/2010 9:15 AM, Alexander P-sky wrote:
> The name should NOT be used as the foundation of the judgment
> (otherwise it implies prejudice) - the judgment should be based on the
> content of the comment instead.

On 11/29/10, N. J. A. Sloane wrote:
> [...]
> In fact, the name is very useful in judging how significant
> a comment is.
> It enables the reader to tell at a glance whether the comment
> is likely to be significant, trivial, or even dubious.
> So YES to signing everything
> Neil

  Robert Munafo  --  mrob.com
 Follow me at: mrob27.wordpress.com - twitter.com/mrob_27 -
youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com

More information about the SeqFan mailing list