[seqfan] Re: "Expansion of ..." versus "G.f. = ..."

[Neil Sloane]

Of course I meant to say

Generating function Sum_{n >= 0} a(n)*x^n = Sum_{k>=1}
x^(k*(3*k+1)/2)/(1-x^k).

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 Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:18 AM Neil Sloane <njasloane at gmail.com> wrote:

> PS  I really don't want to be on the opposite side of the fence from some
> of the top editors.
>
> How about a compromise: I will change those definitions to something with
> this format:
>
> Generating function Sum_{k >= 0} a(n)*x^n = Sum_{k>=1}
> x^(k*(3*k+1)/2)/(1-x^k).
>
> That makes it clear even if you are not certain what g.f. stands for, and
> if you do know, it makes it explicit.
>
> 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, Dec 3, 2020 at 9:00 PM Neil Sloane <njasloane at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Sequence Fans,  In the OEIS "g.f." has a precise technical meaning:
>> it means the ordinary generating function Sum_n a(n)*x^n.
>>
>> On the other hand, to describe a sequence as the "expansion of [some
>> function]" is not precise at all.
>>
>> You could say that 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,... arises from the expansion of
>> 1+2x^2+4x^4+8x^6+16x^8+32x^10+64x^12+ ..., and it would be correct and true.
>>
>> So when I define a sequence by saying it has g.f. = [something], that is
>> a more precise statement than saying it arises from the expansion of
>> [something] .
>>
>> I am writing this because I have noticed that my definitions of sequences
>> sometimes get changed - for the worse - without anyone telling me.
>>
>> I guess that the reason for making this "improvement" is so that we don't
>> scare people. Well, I think that they are more likely to be scared by the
>> idea of an expanding formula: imagine
>>
>>    Sum_{k>=1} x^k/(1-x^k)
>>
>> getting bigger and bigger and BIGGER until it fills the tiny little
>> screen on their phone!
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>