[seqfan] Re: Inconsistencies in OEIS

Thu Sep 17 19:46:33 CEST 2015

There is also nothing wrong with the combination less+more

Less means we have enough of this kind of sequence, while more
means this particular sequence needs more terms

Best regards
Neil

Neil J. A. Sloane, President, OEIS Foundation.
11 South Adelaide Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904, USA.
Also Visiting Scientist, Math. Dept., Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.
Phone: 732 828 6098; home page: http://NeilSloane.com
Email: njasloane at gmail.com

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Neil Sloane <njasloane at gmail.com> wrote:

> "fini" and "more" is perfectly OK.
>
> It would mean that the sequence is finite, but we need more terms.
>
> [You were probably thinking of "full" and "more",
> which indeed are incompatible]
>
> Best regards
> Neil
>
> Neil J. A. Sloane, President, OEIS Foundation.
> 11 South Adelaide Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904, USA.
> Also Visiting Scientist, Math. Dept., Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.
> Phone: 732 828 6098; home page: http://NeilSloane.com
> Email: njasloane at gmail.com
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Frank Adams-Watters <
> franktaw at netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>>
>
>