[seqfan] Re: Authorship of b-files

Charles Greathouse charles.greathouse at case.edu
Thu Aug 18 15:05:45 CEST 2011

A related issue is the length of b-files.  There's less room for
concern about authorship if we stick to standard sizes: powers of 10,

I've always viewed b-file authorship more as "this is the person to
blame if the terms are wrong" than "this is the only person who has
computed terms to this sequence".  If I submit a 10,000-term b-file to
replace a 1000-term b-file and there's an error in the file, I should
be contacted rather than authors of previous b-files.

Having said that I'm not opposed to listing multiple authors, but I
think the format should reflect this main purpose (as I see it).
Eventually it would be nice if the server filled this in as, e.g.,
A. Alces, Table of n, a(n) for n = 0..1000 [replacing an earlier
b-file of C. Greathouse]
or whatever format is decided on.  Of course this could/should be
edited in corner cases: appending terms vs. correcting format errors
vs. replacing an incorrect b-file.  In the last case the kindest
approach is probably to either not mention the earlier b-file or to
simply use "replaced" as above.

Charles Greathouse
Case Western Reserve University

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Robert Gerbicz
<robert.gerbicz at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/8/18 N. J. A. Sloane <njas at research.att.com>
>> Authorship of b-files
>> A, B and C, <a href ....>Table ...< /a > [Terms 1 through 50 were computed
>> by A, terms 51 through 60 by B, and term 61 by C]
>> I would support this. Probably this discussion comes from
> http://oeis.org/A006886 but I think it is better to include also what terms
> computed by each persons. (actually I had the fist 51514 terms of the
> sequence but it appeared a little too big as b file.)
> _______________________________________________
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/

More information about the SeqFan mailing list