[seqfan] Re: On editors-authors discussions

Charles Greathouse charles.greathouse at case.edu
Fri Sep 9 10:10:11 CEST 2011


> The most “creative” question I received was: “Who will ever look at this
> sequence?”.

I love times that I find unexpected answers to the question.

Charles Greathouse
Analyst/Programmer
Case Western Reserve University

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Paolo Lava <paoloplava at gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand the remarks presented by Vladimir because I experienced the
> same.
>
> The most “creative” question I received was: “Who will ever look at this
> sequence?”.
>
> The same question I could have asked to that editor about same sequences of
> him but I prefered not to answer.
>
> In my opinion it is important to keep cool and not be too argumentative by
> both sides otherwise we ruin the spirit of OEIS. Good will as a policy, I’d
> say.
>
> I do not envy the editors’ task. It is really a hard job that deserves our
> understanding.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Paolo P. Lava
>
>
> 2011/9/9 Marc LeBrun <mlb at well.com>
>
>> I think the editors are doing an excellent job with a very challenging
>> task!
>> Kudos and appreciation!
>>
>>
>> A quick suggestion:
>>
>> >> In other words, when an editor asks "Why is this interesting?", this is
>> not
>>
>> >> an invitation to reply via a message, but to add something to the
>> sequence
>>
>> >> to answer the question.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Yes!  Precisely!  I've been looking for a wording that will suggest
>> that to
>> > people.  Often I write that and often people react defensively
>> to it.
>>
>> A possible way to phrase it might be as a concrete request, rather then an
>> open-ended question.  For example, instead of asking just
>>
>>  "Why is this interesting?"
>>
>> Make a concrete request
>>
>>  "Could you please clarify with some brief notes what about this sequence
>> interested you, how you came to study it, or the like?"
>>
>>
>> Some quick responses:
>>
>> > I wish A166746
>> counted n-"digit" representations rather than those below 10^n
>>
>> No need to wish, compute the desired sequence and submit it too!  Or, if
>> you
>> can't do so right away, you might put a suggestion in the Comments like
>> "XXX
>> would also be interesting" so it's not utterly forgotten.
>>
>> More generally: maybe it's already present and I just haven't found it on
>> the Wiki yet, but if not I think it would be an EXCELLENT idea if someone
>> were to start a section for "Suggested Projects".
>>
>> These could range from big complex efforts (maybe even fundable research?)
>> to a list of these kind of miscellaneous ToDo's.  (Heh.  Of course I really
>> should do it myself, rather than just making suggestions but it's been on
>> MY
>> ToDo list far too long!)
>>
>> > is A189408 actually interesting?
>>
>> Definitely!  It was interesting enough for *someone* to compute, write up
>> in
>> the referenced papers, and for *someone* (ahem) to take the trouble to
>> craft
>> an submit and OEIS entry for, so ipso facto it is interesting (at least to
>> *someones* somewheres) right?
>>
>> Because of this phenomenon (sort of like the presumption of innocence in
>> law) in the OEIS it's important to keep in mind that ALL submissions should
>> be viewed as having a small positive initial presumed interest.  Rejection
>> should require a preponderance of evidence that including it would reduce
>> the NET value of the OEIS by offsetting this with sufficient inutility.
>> Borderline submissions should always be given the benefit of the doubt.
>>  The
>> important line to hold is preventing the OEIS from being disfigured by
>> mathematical graffiti--which is easy to spot!  Don't sweat the small
>> stuff!!
>>
>>
>> > And then
>> there are sequences that come too close to an existing
>> > sequence.
>> Should A141768 have been approved, given that A090659
>> > was already in
>> the database?
>>
>> Absolutely!  The fact that someone's even questioning this worries me a
>> little.  The *sequences* are clearly very different, although their
>> *definitions* appear to be strongly related.  The goals of the OEIS are NOT
>> very much like the goals of Bourbaki; the point of the OEIS is NOT to
>> create
>> some kind of minimalist structure.  Heh, otherwise we could just have only
>> A000027 and leave everything else as an exercise for the user!  No, an
>> encyclopedia should be encyclopedic.  As long as their relationship isn't
>> utterly stupid, leaving out sister sequences diminishes rather than
>> improves
>> the value of the OEIS.
>>
>> Please don't be stingy with sister sequences, there's plenty of precedent:
>> for example, not only do we have A000027 but we also have A001477!  And
>> keep
>> in mind that even what appear to be very trivial differences may be vastly
>> significant in some contexts, and can be greatly magnified under
>> automation.
>> For example merely shifting its offset by 1 radically changes a sequence's
>> Mobius transform.
>>
>> So please keep in mind that blacking out a sequence in the database will
>> cast shadows all over the search space.  I agree, balance is a challenge.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>



More information about the SeqFan mailing list