[seqfan] Re: A problem of OEIS

Ron Hardin rhhardin at att.net
Tue Dec 17 21:52:17 CET 2013


It seems something like "Empirical: also number of angels on the head of n pins" would cover it, "empirical" meaning "just looking at the numbers."


 
rhhardin at mindspring.com
rhhardin at att.net (either)



>________________________________
> From: Charles Greathouse <charles.greathouse at case.edu>
>To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu> 
>Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:18 PM
>Subject: [seqfan] Re: A problem of OEIS
> 
>
>It depends. Sometimes it's best to add a comment on an existing sequence,
>especially if the conjecture is sufficiently certain. (We don't have a
>sequence of even perfect numbers for this reason -- it's probably just
>A000396.) But sometimes not-yet-proved-to-be=duplicates may be appropriate.
>What do you have in mind?
>
>Charles Greathouse
>Analyst/Programmer
>Case Western Reserve University
>
>
>On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Vladimir Shevelev <shevelev at bgu.ac.il>wrote:
>
>> Dear SeqFans,
>>
>> Suppose you submitted an interesting sequence in topic A, but it's turn
>> out to be known that at least part of your sequence already exists in
>> accetable limits, but in topic B. We can say that the sequences coincide if
>> and only if anyone will get a proof. It is best known that a process of
>> proving sometimes takes years... What to do in such a case? I think that
>> OEIS could accept the "second version" up to the appearance of a proof.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Vladimir
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>
>
>


More information about the SeqFan mailing list