[seqfan] Re: Erroneous Approved Sequences

[Frank Adams-watters]

Step 1: look at the comments
 In this case, both sequences have very clear explanations of what the difference is.
So yes, both are right.

Step 2, if step 1 fails, is to determine how each sequence us actually defined, i.e., what computation gives the results in the sequence).
If this makes the difference clear, add comments to the sequences explaining what each actually does and where they differ.

Step 3, if step 2 fails, is to ask about it in seqfan. This is basically repeating step 2, but with a much stronger knowledge of mathematics (all of us are smarter than any of us).
If this still fails, the usual decision is to set the status of the one we think is wrong to "dead", with a comment "erroneous version of A??????". But only senior editors should be marking a sequence as dead.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters


-----Original Message-----
From: P. Michael Hutchins <pmh232 at gmail.com>
To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
Sent: Sun, Oct 20, 2019 2:38 pm
Subject: [seqfan] Erroneous Approved Sequences

These two sequences can't both be right:
(I think A025586 is.)

A056959  In repeated iterations of function m->m/2 if m even, m->3m+1 if m
odd, a(n) is maximum value achieved if starting from n.
4, 4, 16, 4, 16, 16, 52

A025586  Largest value in '3x+1' trajectory of n.
1, 2, 16, 4, 16, 16, 52

Given that we're reticent to edit Approved sequences, what should
be done in this clear case?

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