[seqfan] Re: newbie questions regarding slightly modifying OEIS entries

[Marc LeBrun]

> andre maute <andre.maute at gmx.de>
> 
> Happy new year!
> I'm new to the list, so please forgive me my perhaps naive questions.

Welcome, and likewise Happy New Year.  No problem, care is always appreciated, so thanks for asking!

I will attempt to answer some of these for you; others can improve my suggestions.

> Question 1:
> I'm wondering what has to be done, if one wants to update the cross references
> for the following entries
> 
> http://oeis.org/A000085, has no Cf to the other two
> http://oeis.org/A000704, has no Cf to the other two
> http://oeis.org/A001465, has Cf to A000085 and to A000704

You could just contribute updates to the existing sequences.  See
https://oeis.org/Submit.html#:~:text=Edit%20the%20entry

(By the way, in this situation I think this might make sense for completeness and utility, as it often does .  However be aware it's not required that *every* reference have an inverse reference -- for example for many core sequences (say the primes) this would often just be noisy and useless).

[skipping Question 2]

> Question 3+4:
> regarding A001465 and A000704
> would it be possible to slightly change the corresponding Mathematica code of A001465 also?
> and add a corresponding Mathematica code snippet for A000704?

You can also suggest these as changes or additions, and they'll be reviewed as usual.

> Question 5:
> Does every modification to an OEIS sequences gets somehow reviewed?

Yes, that is the usual procedure.  There is a group of volunteer editors that share in this monumental effort.  See
https://oeis.org/wiki/Editorial_Board

> Question 6:
> A000704 and A001465 are somehow dual to each other.
> Do sequence numbers sometime get reassigned, perhaps to reflect such symmetries?

Reassigned, yes occasionally; but for such reasons, no.

The sequence numbers are essentially just arbitrary "unique accession number" IDs that are assigned sequentially (!) to submissions as they arrive.  

Occasionally the number of a rejected or "dead" sequence is *recycled* but since this can mess up external references to the OEIS it's only done very judiciously, and really only so as not to proliferate too many "gaps" between the interesting sequences.  

(On principle I'd go further and strongly discourage even this as a not-best practice for long-term data curation, but I do sympathize with the editors' practical motivation).

In this kind of situation, connecting the sequences with cross-references, and adding comments explaining the relationships, would probably be best.