[seqfan] Re: Inconsistencies in OEIS

[Frank Adams-Watters]

Agreed. Actually, even "fini" and "more" is suspicious, but there are valid cases for it.

I tend to think that "nice" and "core" really are incompatible with "obsc" and "uned". Once we figure out what the sequence actually is is soon enough to apply those labels.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Greathouse <charles.greathouse at case.edu>
To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
Sent: Thu, Sep 17, 2015 11:55 am
Subject: [seqfan] Re: Inconsistencies in OEIS


I can imagine nice with any of obsc, unkn, and uned. I've seen submissions
which
were definitely nice sequences but which required large amounts of
editing;
without the editing the sequence would have been nice and uned.
It's harder to
imagine an obsc/unkn sequence being nice, but suppose the
supersingular primes
were submitted (sufficiently long ago that they were
unknown), but with a
tantalizing description hinting at moonshine. Not
likely, for sure, but probably
not wrong by definition.

I might argue that probation is incompatible with
core, though: we wouldn't
delete a core sequence, but that's the purpose of
probation. But maybe
there's a scenario like the above I haven't considered.

I
did think of another forbidden combination, though: full and more.

Charles
Greathouse
Analyst/Programmer
Case Western Reserve University

On Thu, Sep 17,
2015 at 12:35 PM, Max Alekseyev <maxale at gmail.com> wrote:

> Similarly, "nice"
and "uned", or "nice" and "unkn" is probably is a no-no
> combination.
>
> On
Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Frank Adams-Watters <
> franktaw at netscape.net
> >
wrote:
>
> > "nice" should also never appear with "obsc".
> >
> > Franklin T.
Adams-Watters
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Greathouse
<charles.greathouse at case.edu>
> > To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list
<seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
> > Sent: Thu, Sep 17, 2015 10:30 am
> > Subject:
[seqfan] Re: Inconsistencies in OEIS
> >
> >
> > > If there are any more
combinations of keywords that should trigger
> > warnings
> > I'd like to know.
I currently have:
> > >
> > > - "full" without "fini" -->
> > warning (never
occurs).
> > > - "tabl" and "tabf" together --> warning (occurred 1
> > time,
fixed now).
> >
> > Let's see. Keywords "recycled", "allocated", and
"allocating"
> > should never
> > appear with other keywords. Really
keyword:dead should also appear
> > alone,
> > but in practice there are cases
where it does not (I count 54).
> >
> > kw:nice
> > should never appear with
kw:less.
> >
> > kw:easy should never appear with
> > kw:hard.
> >
> > kw:nonn
should never appear with kw:sign.
> >
> > The keywords done, dupe,
> > huge, and
part have been deprecated and should not
> > be used in any
> > sequences.
> >
>
> Charles Greathouse
> > Analyst/Programmer
> > Case Western Reserve
> >
University
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 2:01 AM, Sidney Cadot
<sidney at jigsaw.nl>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > I fixed 21 sequences
that had such an error. But you might
> > check that
> > > > I caught them
all.
> > >
> > > It seems so - and from what I can tell you
> > also took care
of all
> > > entries with superfluous commas, so that should care of
> > issues
(P11)
> > > and (P13) on the list.
> > >
> > > It will take ~ 1.5 weeks for my
local
> > copy of the database to refresh
> > > the entire database, which will
allow the
> > parser to check the fixes
> > > automatically; this is because I
get all data via
> > HTTP and I throttle
> > > access to under a thousand
requests per hour. In fact
> > while starting
> > > this project I went beyond
that, which may show up in the
> > server usage
> > > statistics and I hope this
hasn't cause performance issues -- if
> > so I
> > > apologize.
> > >
> > > If
there is a more direct way to access the data that
> > doesn't burden
> > > the
server as much, I'd be happy to implement it. Also, if
> > there is
> > >
interest to automate the process of detecting issues in the
> > database,
> > >
I will be happy to hand over my scripts once they have
> > stabilized.
> > >
> >
> > There was one that had both tabl and tabf keywords.
> > > > I
> > don't know
if you considered that an error - it is
> > >
> > > I added that condition as
>
> a check and re-ran, A212013 seems to have
> > > been the only entry that had
this
> > particular combination.
> > >
> > > If there are any more combinations
of keywords that
> > should trigger
> > > warnings I'd like to know. I currently
have:
> > >
> > > - "full"
> > without "fini" --> warning (never occurs).
> > >
- "tabl" and "tabf" together -->
> > warning (occurred 1 time, fixed now).
> >
>
> > > Kind regards
> > >  Sidney
> > >
> > >
> >
_______________________________________________
> > >
> > > Seqfan Mailing list
-
> > http://list.seqfan.eu/
> > >
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
> >
> > Seqfan
> > Mailing list
- http://list.seqfan.eu/
> >
> >
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
> >
> > Seqfan Mailing list -
http://list.seqfan.eu/
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list -
http://list.seqfan.eu/
>

_______________________________________________

Seqfan
Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/