I am one of the "offenders" who has not only asked the question that
sparked this discussion, but has also submitted many apparently
"vague" sequences, such as those related to atomic weights.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, one good reason to allow such sequences is to
include sufficient caveats in the comments as to show why the sequence
is ill-defined under reasonable assumptions. <br>
<br>
A second good reason to include such sequences is to save people the
effort of trying to find a formula for a sequence that they have seen
external to OEIS, when the formula either fails to exist or has
caveats. <br>
<br>
A third good reason to include such sequences as the one in question is
that there are several calendrical sequences already in OEIS, and
another brings us asymptotically closer to closure. <br>
<br>
A fourth good reason to include such sequences is that calenders are
one of the oldest sources of mathematical calculation by our species. <br>
<br>
Finally, "artificially contrived" is even more vague and unyielding to
consistent definition, both between authorities and over time. <br>
<br>
I believe that the system of God-Emperor njas atop the pyramid,
associate editors arrayed with him, feedback from sequence submitters,
and emails from seqfans is mature and robust enough to deal
appropriately with such concerns. What you say is true for you, but
combines a problem of subjectivity with an alleged institutional
problem. <br>
<br>
I have seen such arguments become angry indeed, as, for instance, when
a motion was formally voted upon (and lost) that "franchise novels"
such as Star Trek novels, Star Wars novels, and the like, should not be
eligible for Nebula Awards given by Active Members of Science Fiction
Writers of America. There were many good and heated arguments pro
and con at that formal meeting of SFWA, but one compelling argument was
that we should trust the judgment of our professional membership.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/26/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Karol PENSON</b> <<a href="mailto:penson@lptl.jussieu.fr">penson@lptl.jussieu.fr
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I agree with Henry Gould's opinion.<br> Karol A. Penson
<br><br><br><br><br><br>wrote:<br><br>> Putting religious numbers sequences into OEIS troubles me. For a<br>> beginning example, the precise day that Ramadan beings in subject to<br>> widely different interpretations. One authoritative source believes it
<br>> is one day and others thins it is another day. Some people are very<br>> strict and say it begins when the leader actually SEES the new moon.<br>><br>> In short I believe these kinds of numbers are too variable to deserve
<br>> any mention in OEIS.<br>><br>> Does anyone else agree?<br>><br>> These matters like some other recreational sequences are just too<br>> vague for my taste. Likewise the planet numbers, atomic weights,
<br>> binding energies, etc. and most physical constants. They just do not<br>> belong in OEIS, which ought to be concerned with validly defined<br>> MATHEMATICAL sequences, not artificially contrived and religious
<br>> numbers. I do not even believe the ushango numbers from the African<br>> bone constitute a validly defined sequence so I think OEIS is getting<br>> toltally wild and unpleasing if you let these thing in. They belong in
<br>> an amusement category on another website.<br>><br>> Henry Gould<br>><br>> Hans Havermann wrote:<br>><br>>> Brendan McKay:<br>>><br>>>> A Jewish calendar on the web that has been thoroughly tested is here:
<br>>>><br>>>> <a href="http://www.jewishgen.org/jos/">http://www.jewishgen.org/jos/</a><br>>>><br>>><br>>> That's great. Thank you so much. I was able to tabulate the data<br>>> available there and confirm that my formula agrees with it for the
<br>>> years 1753-2238. And using those dates, I can now revisit the<br>>> original "Years when Ramadan and Rosh Hashana coincide" table:<br>>><br>>> Year Ramadan Rosh Hashana<br>>>
<br>>> 1777 10/3 10/2<br>>> 1778 9/23 9/22<br>>> 1779 9/12 9/11<br>>><br>>> 1810 9/30 9/29<br>>> 1811 = 9/19 9/19<br>>> 1812 9/8 9/7
<br>>><br>>> 1843 = 9/25 9/25<br>>> 1844 = 9/14 9/14<br>>><br>>> 1875 10/1 9/30<br>>> 1876 9/20 9/19<br>>> 1877 9/9 9/8<br>>>
<br>>> 1908 9/27 9/26<br>>> 1909 = 9/16 9/16<br>>><br>>> 1940 = 10/3 10/3*<br>>> 1941 = 9/22 9/22*<br>>> 1942 = 9/12 9/12<br>>><br>>> 1973 9/28 9/27
<br>>> 1974 9/18 9/17*<br>>> 1975 9/7 9/6<br>>><br>>> 2005 = 10/4 10/4<br>>> 2006 9/24 9/23<br>>> 2007 = 9/13 9/13<br>>><br>>> 2038 = 9/30 9/30*
<br>>> 2039 = 9/19 9/19*<br>>> 2040 = 9/8 9/8<br>>><br>>> 2071 9/25 9/24<br>>> 2072 9/14 9/13*<br>>><br>>> 2103 10/3 10/2<br>>> 2104 9/21 9/20
<br>>> 2105 = 9/10 9/10<br>>><br>>> 2136 = 9/27 9/27<br>>> 2137 = 9/16 9/16<br>>><br>>> 2168 = 10/3 10/3<br>>> 2169 9/22 9/21<br>>> 2170 9/12 9/11
<br>>><br>>> 2201 9/30 9/29<br>>> 2202 9/19 9/18<br>>> 2203 = 9/8 9/8<br>>><br>>> 2233 10/6 10/5<br>>> 2234 = 9/25 9/25<br>>> 2235 = 9/14 9/14
<br>>><br>>> *'s are corrected Rosh Hashana dates. Three consecutive coincidental<br>>> years are rather special, appearing only twice: 1940-1942 and 2038-2040.<br>>><br>>><br>><br><br><br>
--<br>_________________________________________________________________________<br><br>Karol A. PENSON<br><br>Universite
Paris
6
| Email : <a href="mailto:penson@lptl.jussieu.fr">penson@lptl.jussieu.fr</a>.<br>Laboratoire de Physique Theorique |<br>de la Matiere Condensee (LPTMC) | Tel. : (33 1) 44 27 72 33<br>Boite
courrier
121
| Mobile : (33 6) 07 27 51 56<br>4, place Jussieu, Tour 24, Et.2 | Fax : (33 1) 44 27 51 00<br>F 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France |<br><br></blockquote></div><br>