[seqfan] Re: Sequence from ChatGPT

[Arthur O'Dwyer]

On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 10:43 AM <israel at math.ubc.ca> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, I asked ChatGPT:
>
> Write a new sequence for the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences
>
> The result was
>
[nonsense]

Please don't submit machine-generated spam to OEIS. As I understand it,
OEIS is supposed to be a mathematical resource. If it ends up full of
machine-generated spam, it becomes useless.
See also
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-chatgpt-is-banned
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33891538


The sequence of concatenations of Fibonacci
> numbers and squares in both orders (not allowing leading 0's) is
>
> 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 29, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, 41,
> 42,
> 43, 45, 48, 50, 51, 54, 59, 80, 81, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 98, 113,
> 116, 121, 125, 130, 131, 134, 136, 139, 149, 155, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164,
> 165, 168, 181, 189, 210, 211, 214, 216, 219, 225, 236, 249, 250, 251, 252,
> 253, 255, 258, ...
>
> which doesn't seem to be in OEIS, and I think I'll contribute it.


Why? Is there anything noteworthy about this sequence?
"Computer <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no>said
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no> submit it" is not
noteworthy. Computer says lots of things.

I think it's particularly un-mathematically-interesting because
"concatenation" is nothing but an artifact of base-10 notation. If you
think there's something special about concatenating Xs and Ys in base 10,
why not also in base 8, or base 3, or base 37?  And why squares but not
cubes, Fibonacci numbers but not strings of 1s,...

–Arthur