[seqfan] Re: Sequence from ChatGPT

[Alonso Del Arte]

Proofreading might be a more productive use of ChatGPT here, e.g., "how
would you explain that numbers with property *P* also have property *Q*?"
Such a prompt might generate more useful content than asking it to come up
with an entire new entry from scratch.

By the way, has anyone tried looking up something on the OEIS using a
mobile device rather than a desktop computer, e.g., a Samsung Galaxy S8+?
If you don't know how to fix that problem, ChatGPT might be able to help
you.

Al





On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 12:37 PM Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer at gmail.com>
wrote:

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


-- 
Alonso del Arte