[seqfan] Re: Keyword modifiers

[Charles Greathouse]

*If* we're committed to that syntax that's fine. But if not we should
explore options before the choice is made.

> Is it also planned to enable frac(Axxxxxx) to point to the denominator or
> numerator sequence? And then click on it to show the fractions?

I prefer Franklin's suggestion, in some form:
http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/2009-January/000479.html

Charles Greathouse
Analyst/Programmer
Case Western Reserve University

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:07 PM,  <franktaw at netscape.net> wrote:
> Those are, ab initio, reasonable suggestions for syntax. Buy the parentheses
> notation is already, as I understand it, in train for tabf; we should be
> consistent. And parentheses are the most flexible; the modifiers can be
> separated by commas and/or nested.
>
> Is it also planned to enable frac(Axxxxxx) to point to the denominator or
> numerator sequence? And then click on it to show the fractions?
>
> Franklin T. Adams-Watters
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Greathouse <charles.greathouse at case.edu>
>
> Yes, it would be nice to be able to search for these things by
> keyword. I've toyed with the idea of mimicking the CSS |= selector by
> writing
>
> fini-conj (or even fini-?)
>
> which allows additional levels to be added if needed.
>
> This doesn't obviate the need for comments, but allows for much easier
> searching.
>
> Charles Greathouse
> Analyst/Programmer
> Case Western Reserve University
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:34 AM,  <franktaw at netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> If we're going to have modified keywords, how about a "conj" modifier
>
> to
>>
>> indicate a conjectured keyword? Then these would be
>
> "fini(conj),full(conj)".
>>
>> This modifier would also apply to the "mult" keyword.
>>
>> It would be nice to also have a way to show that the infiniteness of a
>> sequence is conjectured.
>>
>> Franklin T. Adams-Watters
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Georgi Guninski <guninski at guninski.com>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 01:42:51PM +0400, Max Alekseyev wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect that finiteness of A027687 is not proved but "extremly
>>> probable" as stated at Achim Flammenkamp's page:
>>> http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/achim/mpn.html
>>> (notice the difference between answers "yes and proved" and simply
>>> "yes" in the column "Are all discovered?").
>>>
>>> The flag 'fini' is thus inappropriate.
>>
>>
>>
>> May be these should not be "fini" too:
>>
>> A046060                 5-multiperfect numbers.
>> A046061                 6-multiperfect numbers.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/