[seqfan] Re: A problem of OEIS
shevelev at bgu.ac.il
Tue Dec 17 22:53:22 CET 2013
In my own problem I now have proved a beautiful one-to-one correspondence
between terms of A233334 and A124771. They indeed coincide, and I shall
relocate all comments and Peter's b-file to A123771.
But I posed a general problem when not always a solution comes so fast.
From: SeqFan [seqfan-bounces at list.seqfan.eu] on behalf of Charles Greathouse [charles.greathouse at case.edu]
Sent: 17 December 2013 22:18
To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list
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?
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,
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan