[seqfan] Re: Fractal sequence A087088

Tue Jul 21 15:59:18 CEST 2020

Max,  good suggestion.

"Self-similar" is reasonably precise and has a long history in the OEIS. It
is an acceptable term.

Let's avoid "fractal".

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 Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 9:49 AM M. F. Hasler <seqfan at hasler.fr> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 5:19 AM Frank Adams-watters wrote:
>
> > I have tried to push that idea before, and gotten nowhere with it. For
> > what it's worth, I'll support it now.
> > Perhaps what we need is a word for the looser, non-rigorous definition.
> > Might I suggest "fractaloid"? If that's too ugly, I'm open to other
> > suggestions.
> >
>
> I favour much Jean-Paul's view on this subject :
> let's not mix up "fractal" and "self-similar" ;
> "reproduces itself modulo some shift / scaling / rotation"
> is clearly (couldn't be more) an instance of "self-similarity"
> (a convincing reason to use this terminology rather than any other!)
> and not (a priori) related to "fractal", even if one might object that
> a) some fractals are self-similar
>  (but most of them only (very) approximately)
> b) the adjective "fractal" (maybe) isn't well-defined yet and there could
> be a way of including "our case" in a (new and/or better(?)) definition.
> (That looks quite arbitrary / contrived to me, given the well-established
> notion of self-similarity.
> Sounds much like "I want to call it 'fractal' and not 'self-similar'
> whatever reasons suggest the contrary.")
>
> - Maximilian
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Sycamore via SeqFan <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
> > To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
> > Cc: David Sycamore <djsycamore at yahoo.co.uk>
> > Sent: Sun, Jul 19, 2020 6:45 am
> > Subject: [seqfan] Re: Fractal sequence A087088
> >
> > Looks like there is a variety of different perspectives on this. Would it
> > perhaps be helpful to both contributors and editors if oeis were to have
> > it’s own unambiguous statement of precisely what constitutes a fractal
> > sequence?
> > Perhaps the terms and definitions used by Kimberling et al could be taken
> > as standard?
> >
> > Best regards
> > David.
> >
> > > On 19 Jul 2020, at 07:28, Frank Adams-watters via SeqFan <
> > seqfan at list.seqfan.eu> wrote:
> > >
> > > That definition is both too strong and too weak.
> > >
> > > It is too weak, because any infinitive sequence is fractal by that
> > definition. (An infinitive sequence is a sequence of positive integers
> that
> > contains every positive integer infinitely often.)
> > >
> > > Too strong, because, for example in the current instance A087088, the
> > transformation getting the original sequence back is not just taking a
> > subsequence; it also involves an arithmetic operation (subtracting one).
> > A087088 is infinitive, and hence fractal by that definition; but this
> would
> > be based on a different transformation than the one given in the
> definition
> > of the sequence.
> > >
> > > Franklin T. Adams-Watters
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Éric Angelini <eric.angelini at skynet.be>
> > > To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
> > > Cc: David Sycamore <djsycamore at yahoo.co.uk>
> > > Sent: Thu, Jul 16, 2020 10:06 am
> > > Subject: [seqfan] Re: Fractal sequence A087088
> > >
> > > I’ve always used the definition:
> > > Fractal seq S = seq S containing
> > > an infinite amount of copies of S.
> > > There are a lot of ways to show/
> > > fix/decide/etc. how to highlight
> > > a single copy.
> > >
> > > à+
> > > É.
> > > Catapulté de mon aPhone
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Le 16 juil. 2020 à 16:11, David Sycamore via SeqFan <
> > seqfan at list.seqfan.eu> a écrit :
> > >> Coming a bit late to this discussion, I have a question concerning
> the
> > definition of what is meant by a “fractal” sequence? Could there be more
> > than one different interpretation of this term?
> > >> According to one definition, currently described in oeis, a sequence
> is
> > fractal if, when all first occurrences are removed, what remains is the
> > original sequence (which means that it contains a proper subsequence
> > identical to itself).
> > >> Removal of all first occurrences from A087088 gives:
> > >> 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2,1, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1...
> > >> which is not the same as the original.
> > >> Can anybody explain why A087088 is considered to be fractal?
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> David.
> > >>>> On 14 Jul 2020, at 07:12, Allan Wechsler <acwacw at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> If I were asked to write a sequence title from scratch, I think I
> > would
> > >>> dispense with "simplest", and say something like "Positive ruler-type
> > >>> fractal sequence with 1's in every third position." I think only this
> > >>> sequence satisfies that description.
> > >>> A "fractal" sequence can be constructed upon any "skeleton" of 1's,
> as
> > long
> > >>> as there are an infinite number of entries that are _not_ 1.
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:42 PM Neil Sloane <
> njasloane at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>> Allan, that is an excellent point.  So maybe the sequence should say
> > >>>> something like "simplest two-step-insertion fractal" ?
> > >>>> 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 Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:37 PM Allan Wechsler <acwacw at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>> To return to the claim of "simplest" sequence with this property;
> we
> > are
> > >>>> in
> > >>>>> the difficult position of trying to read the mind of the person who
> > was
> > >>>>> making that claim. I think they had some notion of "simplicity" in
> > mind
> > >>>> for
> > >>>>> which the statement was arguably true, but as it stands it is hard
> > to see
> > >>>>> what that notion was. The point about the ruler functions is a
> > strong one
> > >>>>> -- A001511 can be given a homologous four-step definition exactly
> > >>>> analogous
> > >>>>> to the one given for A087088, using gaps of one undefined place
> > instead
> > >>>> of
> > >>>>> two. One is simpler than two, isn't it?
> > >>>>> But even A000027, the positive integers, displays the required
> > property.
> > >>>>> Remove the only 1; decrement all other entries; behold. In what
> > sense is
> > >>>>> A087088 simpler than A000027? I think the author(s) had some
> > additional
> > >>>>> constraints in mind. But if I were shown the title only, and asked
> to
> > >>>>> reconstruct the sequence, I would probably produce A000027.
> > >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:05 PM Frank Adams-watters via SeqFan <
> > >>>>> seqfan at list.seqfan.eu> wrote:
> > >>>>>> This sequence and A163491 are ordinal transforms of each other.
> > >>>>>> Franklin T. Adams-Watters
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: Peter Munn <techsubs at pearceneptune.co.uk>
> > >>>>>> To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
> > >>>>>> Sent: Mon, Jul 13, 2020 9:01 am
> > >>>>>> Subject: [seqfan] Fractal sequence A087088
> > >>>>>> Hello seqfans,
> > >>>>>> A087088 claims to be "the simplest nontrivial sequence" such that
> > >>>>> removing
> > >>>>>> every "1" gives the same result as adding 1 to every term. Ruler
> > >>>>>> sequences, such as A001511, share this property, so does anyone
> > have a
> > >>>>>> clear idea how "simplest nontrivial" might be defined?
> > >>>>>> And can anyone shed light on the reason its offset is 3? [1]
> > >>>>>> Best Regards,
> > >>>>>> Peter
> > >>>>>> [1] Apart from the b-file, the rest of the sequence is written as
> > >>>> though
> > >>>>>> the offset is 1 (so formulas are strictly incorrect). The
> > relationship
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>> A244040 contributed by Edgar and Van Alstine is neatest with
> offset
> > 1
> > >>>> or
> > >>>>>> offset 0. A relationship I discovered recently (comment in
> > >>>>>> https://oeis.org/A024629) is clearly neatest if the offset is 1,
> > >>>> whilst
> > >>>>> my
> > >>>>>> work on symmetry (https://oeis.org/history/view?seq=A087088&v=25)
> > and
> > >>>>> with
> > >>>>>> A335933 suggests an OEIS-incompatible offset of 1.5 .
> > >>>>>> As we are only now starting to refer from other sequences to terms
> > of
> > >>>>>> A087088, it seems a good time to settle on a good offset. Unless
> > anyone
> > >>>>>> knows a good reason for keeping it as 3, offset 1 seems better.
> > >>>>>> --
> >
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>