[seqfan] Re: Naming advice

[Allan Wechsler]

I could have sworn that I had seen some fairly-authoritative guidance that
deprecated the use of sequence cross-references in names and brief
descriptions. If this memory is mistaken, then Robert Israel's
straightforward suggestion is appealing.

Peter Luschny's notational variant is attractive in a formalistic way, but
has the disadvantage of introducing a new formalism that a lot of users are
unlikely to know.

Marc LeBrun's suggestion has some of the flavor I was looking for in a
crossreferenceless name, but drops the useful information that the
reconstruction is not simply "a" factorial, but is in fact the factorial of
the sequence index.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:26 PM Peter Luschny <peter.luschny at gmail.com>
wrote:

> >
> > RI>  I think clarity is better than catchiness, and I don't agree that
> "we
> > don't
> > RI>  like to see sequence numbers in the names of other sequences". There
> > are
> > RI>  lots of sequences with sequence numbers in their names.
> > RI>  My suggestion would be
> > RI>        a(n) is the unique k such that A108951(k) = n!.
> >
>
> I very much agree with this. Let's write
>
> a(n) = ℩k (A108951(k) = n!)
>
> ℩ is the iota operator (the Unicode Character 'turned greek small letter
> iota' (U+2129). [see https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2100.pdf ]
>
> I love this notation ever since I read Principia Mathematica. But
> probably too much of a hope in an ASCII destroyed world.
>
> Cheers, Peter
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>