[seqfan] Re: Position of new material
charliemath at optonline.net
Mon Nov 28 02:09:05 CET 2011
This recent correspondence with Neil may be of some interest:
I have a question regarding the submission of a Comment that is a
generalization of a previously submitted Comment by someone else; namely,
what is the proper way to indicate that the new Comment is a generalization
of the old Comment? If the new Comment immediately follows the old one,
then theres no problem. But suppose there are quite a few unrelated
Comments following the old one.
I can think of 3 ways to handle the situation:
1. Submit the new Comment out of chronological order immediately following
the old one;
2. Submit the new Comment at the end of the list with a reference along the
lines of See related Comment from Feb 13 2007.;
3. Just submit the Comment starting with In general, ... and let the
reader figure it out.
Perhaps theres another. Thanks for your perspective.
Charlie, sorry for not replying sooner (my VPN gadget expired).
I think no. 1 is by far the best.
Put the new comment right after the old one.
From: seqfan-bounces at list.seqfan.eu [mailto:seqfan-bounces at list.seqfan.eu]
On Behalf Of franktaw at netscape.net
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 7:00 PM
To: seqfan at list.seqfan.eu
Subject: [seqfan] Re: Position of new material
Again, I'm not proposing mass editing of existing sequences.
But I recently added comments to a couple of sequences in what I
considered appropriate positions, and had an editor say "no, they
belong at the end" and move them there.
What I'm suggesting is that these rules are desirable, and we should
try to move towards them rather than away from them.
Franklin T. Adams-Watters
From: Charles Greathouse <charles.greathouse at case.edu>
I largely follow rules similar to Franklin's when adding new material.
In short: if there's a good reason for it to be in a particular
place, put it there, otherwise put it at the end. I don't rearrange
existing material unless there's a special reason for it.
Longer entries could use some work, though I haven't attempted to put
any kind of order to them in the past. There are I have tried to
limit material in those entries. For example, I move
peripherally-related information to other sequences when possible.
For example, if a comment was proposed for A000040 that said:
For all members p of this sequence, p+1 has the property ...
I would tend to move this to A008864 which has less material and is
more closely related.
Case Western Reserve University
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Alonso Del Arte
<alonso.delarte at gmail.com> wrote:
> My two cents: I agree with Franklin's suggested rules of precedence
> comments and formulas but I also partly agree with Tony on the
> impracticality of doing it on a thorough basis.
> However, perhaps we should do it for core sequences. The comment
> for such sequences may very well be riddled with unintentional
> (people saying pretty much the same thing, failing to realize the
> equivalence of their comments to earlier comments).
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:36 PM, <franktaw at netscape.net> wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting that any sort of effort be made to make every
>> follow these rules. But I think that sequences so organized are
>> those that are strictly chronological, and improving some sequences
>> better than improving none of them.
>> As for differences of opinion about the importance and relevence of
>> material: that is precisely what we have editors for.
>> Franklin T. Adams-Watters
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: T. D. Noe <noe at sspectra.com>
>> At 10:31 PM -0500 11/26/11, franktaw at netscape.net wrote:
>>> Is there, or should there be, a standard rule for where new
>>> to be placed in the comments or formulas section of a sequence? My
>>> opinion is that the following rules should be applied, in order:
>>> 1) If the new material is closely related to existing material, it
>>> should be placed next to it.
>>> 2) More significant material should be placed before items that are
>>> more peripherally related to the sequence.
>>> 3) Place new items after existing items.
>>> Basically, I think the sequence entry should try to present some
>>> of narrative rather than simply reflecting the history of the entry.
>> I think it would be too much work (and too open to opinion) to try to
>> organize entries as you wish. Currently almost all new material is
>> at the end of a section. I think we should continue to do this.
> Alonso del Arte
> Author at
> Musician at ReverbNation.com
Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan