Conjectured values in b-file for A160678

32 views
Skip to first unread message

Allan Wechsler

unread,
Apr 5, 2026, 6:20:13 PMApr 5
to SeqFan
Continuing the discussion of when it's appropriate to include conjectured values in sequence data, observe 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.)

-- Allan

David desJardins

unread,
Apr 5, 2026, 8:39:33 PMApr 5
to seq...@googlegroups.com
It may not be worth special treatment but you could have a b-file for confirmed values, and a c-file for conjectured values.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SeqFan" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to seqfan+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/seqfan/CADy-sGFqVPtmLLSfreUeicO%3DjWLJ920k%2BJev1BPMzx3F4uQ3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Allan Wechsler

unread,
Apr 5, 2026, 9:35:17 PMApr 5
to seq...@googlegroups.com
David, I was thinking something exactly along those lines, although I don't think "conjectured value" is a happy description for these entries. We know that the given values occur in the sequence; we don't know whether there are more qualifying numbers between the ones given. Still, putting only confirmed consecutive values in the b-file and other confirmed (but possibly non-consecutive) values in a c-file seems like a perfectly defensible solution. My only scruple is that this change would sadly reduce the b-file.

-- Allan

Ruud H.G. van Tol

unread,
Apr 6, 2026, 1:51:40 AMApr 6
to seq...@googlegroups.com

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

Michel Marcus

unread,
Apr 6, 2026, 4:20:02 AMApr 6
to seq...@googlegroups.com
Ok for me.

Sans virus.www.avast.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SeqFan" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to seqfan+un...@googlegroups.com.

Sean A. Irvine

unread,
Apr 6, 2026, 4:53:55 PMApr 6
to seq...@googlegroups.com
Hi,

My opinion is that the b-file in A160678 should be truncated to the known correct limits (n=45).

An a-file can be used for the extra terms and graphs based on the a-file can also be uploaded if they are useful.

Certainly I agree with Allan that at the very least there needs to be some clear statement indicating the current state of the information.

Sean.


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages