[seqfan] Re: Cleaning up cross-references to recycled sequences - can this be automated?
charles.greathouse at case.edu
Sun Jan 30 21:24:05 CET 2011
I think the cost must be paid in any case: even if we didn't recycle
numbers, we don't want dangling references.
But we do run the risk of running out of numbers. The present scheme
has a limit of a million sequences, and we've already used a fifth of
that. At present rates it would take a long time but I expect that
the rate of submissions will increase as a result of the new
Case Western Reserve University
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Marc LeBrun <mlb at well.com> wrote:
> Why isn't the optimum solution simply to never recycle sequence numbers?
> Recycling is guaranteed to waste scarce human resources (that might
> otherwise be used more productively to benefit the OEIS) with either
> cleaning up headaches it causes, or trying to prevent them, or else
> suffering the consequences of failing to prevent them.
> What problem does this pernicious unhygienic practice actually solve?
> It's not like we're going to run out of integers.
>>="Russ Cox" <rsc at swtch.com>
>> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Andrew Weimholt
>> <andrew.weimholt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I recently suggested that a new sequence be split into two sequences.
>>> The author followed that suggestion and the original sequence was
>>> subsequently recycled by other editors.
>>> However, the author had also added cross-references to the
>>> now-recycled sequence to several other of his sequences.
>> Thanks for pointing this out. I've made a note to find some
>> solution to this, perhaps not letting a sequence be recycled
>> unless the cross-references to it are deleted too.
>> I have also started a list of suggestions here so as not to
>> bog seqfan with too much discussion about server details:
>> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan