Talk:List of integer sequences

A Start

This article has just been started.

More sequences could be added later in order to make the article more comprehensive.

Novonium (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Keeping The Article Manageable

The point of this article is that not every OEIS sequence has its own Wikipedia entry.

Therefore not every OEIS sequence needs to be included in this article. And this in turn will ensure that the article stays manageable in terms of length.

Novonium (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Order

is there any logic to the order of this list ? It seems to be random. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree it would be nice to have a default order to the list - either the OEIS number or the wikipedia page. Could the OEIS number and url columns be combined with a piped external link? This would give more room in the table for the other columns. Dsp13 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The list can be ordered in three different ways:

• Based on the Sequence number (such as A000001, A000002, A000003,...)
• Based on the Sequence name (such as Achilles number, Bell number,....)
• Based on the first 10 elements using Lexicographical order.

This article uses a sortable wikitable so that the readers can decide for themselves which order they want.

But I think the default order should be the Sequence number.

Novonium (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Proposed Deletion

The article should not be deleted because:

• The list itself does appear in the OEIS albeit in a different form. See these links:

http://oeis.org/wiki/Index_to_OEIS http://oeis.org/wiki/Index_to_OEIS:_Section_Cor#core

• The article merely provides the list of numbers that appear in each sequence. This is merely a routine calculation. And routine calculation does not count as original research.

See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CALC

Novonium (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

one column for two

How about merging External Link with Sequence Number thus: A000110 —Tamfang (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Support - Yes we should. This would get rid of one extra column, the external link column. Novonium (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

civilized notation

I've found a bunch of stuff like

n-2

instead of

n − 2

(the latter uses a minus sign, not a hyphen, and has proper spacing, and properly italicizes the n but not the 2), and

2*3

instead of

2·3

and

2^p

instead of

2^p

etc. I've done some cleanup per WP:MOSMATH. Could others continue this? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Automated List Generation

This article is missing lots of links since many many math pages have an OEIS entry, ex. Chen prime. So I wonder if there is a way to automatically keep this list up to date. Wqwt (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but many of the OEIS entries have a link to Wikipedia. Maybe there is a way to search OEIS for those links or maybe what external websites point to a Wikipedia page?  !!!!

I'm not sure how Wikipedia usually maintains such lists, but I would bet anything listed in Category:Integer sequences or pages that use Template:OEIS could be included. Wqwt (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a nice idea! Is there a way to programmatically change the list when the template Template:OEIS is used or it is only possible to do this by using a bot? Saung Tadashi (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Made a python script to check if the list is updated by searching for pages in Category:Integer sequences that uses Template:OEIS: http://paws-public.wmflabs.org/paws-public/User:Saung_Tadashi/oeis.ipynb Saung Tadashi (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Scope of this list?

The current requirement for inclusion of a sequence in this list is that it has a Wikipedia article. But there seem to be many important sequences that do not have a Wikipedia article. For example, should "core" sequences without a specific Wikipedia article, like, say A000043 also be included? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there should always be a Wikipedia page that corresponds more or less directly to the OEIS sequence. I don't think that an OEIS sequence being labelled "core" is enough, although it might be a reason to consider creating a Wikipedia page if one does not exist. However, in the specific case of A000043 it would seem reasonable to include it with a link to Mersenne prime, as after all that page does reference A000043 as well as A000668. Chris Thompson (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I have now added A000043 to the list. Let's see whether anyone objects! Chris Thompson (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "core" shouldn't be a criterium because very basic and technically fundamental but actually uninteresting sequences (like (1, 1, 1, ...) etc) are also in that category. Also, the zero sequence which is certainly important and has an article (zero morphism) is not and should probably not be in the list. — MFH:Talk 00:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

can you add these to the article

https://oeis.org/A001844

https://oeis.org/A000124

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c3:4201:d70:f0bb:be1c:2914:3805 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

---

List of OEIS sequences → List of integer sequences – Entries here are integer sequences and are included because of that (and existing coverage on WP), not because they have an OEIS entry. (Never mind the RAS syndrome!) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nominator and the commenters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of OEIS sequences. Is a list of notable integer sequences rather than an OEIS directory. I've never quite gotten why so many of our articles reference OEIS and OEIS ids in the body text of articles. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It is definitely appropriate to reference OEIS: it is a publication that exerts significant levels of editorial control over its content, so it's a reliable source. (Every addition I've made has then had to go through two levels of peer review, and in some cases significant discussion and modification, before appearing.) Why those references should appear as inline text rather than in a consistent referencing style with the rest of the article is a different question. But as part of this list itself, the use of OEIS numbers is not problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support rename because it more clearly describes the scope of the list (just the ones that are notable here). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support renaming, since it better indicates the subject matter. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is about some OEIS sequences, not about integer sequences in general. The name should reflect the content. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

https://oeis.org/A000079

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 1048576, 2097152, 4194304, 8388608, 16777216, 33554432, 67108864, 134217728, 268435456, 536870912, 1073741824, 2147483648, 4294967296, 8589934592 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C3:4201:D70:B5DC:C716:2714:B0D4 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Jordan's totient function

It seems like Jordan's totient function should be in the list, but it is a family of sequences. What do you think? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Maths

List of integer 2405:205:1488:C3AA:0:0:77F:48A0 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Mathematica notation

The list has probably been created by a Mathematica user because no serious mathematician would write {1, 2, 2, 1, 1, ...} which denotes a set that simplifies (i.e., is equal) to {1, 2}. Would others agree that sequences (at least those which are not strictly increasing and can therefore be "identified" with the set which is their range) should be denoted as (1, 2, 2, 1, 1, ...) when the order matters? [Fortunately, cultural vandalism has not yet went as far as introducing the set notation {...} in the page on sequences which fortunately still uses exclusively the correct standard notation.] — MFH:Talk 00:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)