[seqfan] Re: A problem of OEIS

[Alonso Del Arte]

In such a general, theoretical scenario, I think one of the first questions
the Editors would ask themselves is how much the contributor has made a
good faith effort to prove the two sequences are different (which in your
case, as a published author of mathematical journal articles, it would be
fair to assume that you indeed have).

Another initial question would be: what is the likelihood the two sequences
could turn out to be the same? As in the example Charles gave regarding the
even perfect numbers.

Along with the specific considerations, then the decision could go
something like this:

* The contributor has failed to prove the two sequences are different but
he made a very good try to prove it AND the likelihood of coincidence seems
to be split evenly; so the contributor is given the benefit of the doubt
and the new sequence is added to the OEIS.
* The contributor has failed to prove the two sequences are different and
he doesn't seem to have made any effort in that direction, plus the
likelihood of coincidence is estimated to be quite high; so the new
sequence is rejected.

Of course the specific details will differ and accordingly so will the
decision.

Al


On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Vladimir Shevelev <shevelev at bgu.ac.il>wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> Best regards,
> Vladimir
> ________________________________________
> 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?
>
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>



-- 
Alonso del Arte
Author at SmashWords.com<https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/AlonsoDelarte>
Musician at ReverbNation.com <http://www.reverbnation.com/alonsodelarte>