On 2026-04-06 00:19, Allan Wechsler wrote:
> Continuing the discussion of when it's appropriate to include
> conjectured values in sequence data, observe
oeis.org/A160678
> <
http://oeis.org/A160678>. According to the link to the table provided
> by G. P. Michon and Michel Marcus, the list is known to be complete
> only up to n=45. The subsequent values definitely meet the criteria,
> but past n=45 we might have missed some.
>
> But the b-file on OEIS gives all 307 known values without caveat.
>
> Is any action appropriate? At minimum, we might add a warning comment
> in the entry or at the top of the b-file. Should the b-file perhaps be
> cut off an n=45 and the remaining entries moved to a supporting file
> that doesn't show up in the graph? (I would regret that a little
> because the graph is pretty cool.)
One option is to have two sequences, so one with and one without
conjectured values. Then the name should clearly mention "Conjectured".
But if it is only about the graph, one can add an svg-file with the
graph, to also show conjectured values.
Some sequences have out-of-band values, often zeros or negative numbers,
for special terms ("0 if it doesn't exist", "-1 if unknown").
Let's almost never have conjectured values in b-files.
-- Greetings, Ruud