Talk:On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences

message: The article currently uses n (n) for indices and A_n (A_n) for members.  I think this looks bad, and doesn't match the OEIS (which uses no italics).  The 'right' way would seem to be n and A_n, or perhaps n (n) and A_n (A_n).
There is value to italicizing n to draw it out in the text, but when paired with the upright A it has a very unpolished appearance.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: if someone knows the history of how at&t is related to this topic, it would be useful to add. i clicked a link on a link on a wiki page and was taken to an att website, which prompted me to look for more info on this page. the company obviously have something to do with the sequence ecyclopedia, but there is no real reference to this fact in this article. HantaVirus (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The database is hosted on an AT&T web site and run by Neil Sloane, a long-time AT&T employee. I've added some text to the article explaining that. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does at&t have to do with this? 

message: A suggestion to change the template in that way has been made at Template talk:OEIS#This is an external link. Lipedia (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Does anyone want to use footnotes instead of inline links to link OEIS sequences?

message: Are there any examples of research in mathematics published in fairly prestigious journals which was aided by OEIS?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.117.210 (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at https://oeis.org/wiki/Works_Citing_OEIS. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  how useful is it in actual research? 

message: Minor change from 180284 sequences and The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS), in the future at least 340142 sequences and no higher than contains 3403xx sequences in around 2020 and will be extincted*
180284+(319716/2) = 340142 sequences.
With extinct OEIS in 2020 at 340,142 sequences, the A34xxxx serial with only hundreds of sequences, Last possible A-Numbers will be A3406xx or A3407xx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.168.179 (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Start a new section in the Talk page if you are introducing a new topic; I have invented one for you. (2) Where do these numbers and "last possible A-Numbers" come from? At the very least, you need a reference. Chris Thompson (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Please keep to the guidelines for Talk page discussions,, rather than modifying the text of your original posting. Meanwhile, you still haven't explained why you think OEIS is going to be "extinct" in 2020, or when it acquires 340142 sequences. Chris Thompson (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, talk pages are for discussions on improvements to the article only, not for general-purpose discussion about the subject of the article. Unless someone has published something about limits to OEIS in a reliable source, we can't include it in the article and so it doesn't belong here. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Future milestones? Wqwt (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation on OEIS size limit? 

message: March 2018.
 2018.
 2019.
 2019/2020.
 2020.
OEIS going to extinct in 2020 at 340,142 sequences?
Exceeds the limit of 340,142 sequences though, with milestones from A300000, A310000, A320000, A330000 and A340000.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.158.170 (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Future milestones? Wqwt (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Milestones

message: Nothing in the section was cited and Wikipedia:NOTMANUAL. Wqwt (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Searching the OEIS" section 

message: This might be worth mentioning: https://xkcd.com/2016/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without third-party reliable sources. Also see WP:TRIVIA. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed "OEIS in popular culture" section 

message: The article has inline <math> formatting. I changed that into straight html (wikicode), but twice was reverted by   . 
Clearly Eppstein's argument is changing in steps; WP:RETAIN is not applicable (it is about WP:ENGVAR, nor is WP:DATEVAR applicable); saying "to me your new formatting looks significantly uglier" is not an argument, especially since general accepted wisdom is that one should not mix formattings & font families inline when not needed. -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should be gratuitously changing one style of mathematics formatting to another, and especially not changing <math> to templates. In general, template-based mathematics formatting is both weaker than <math> (unable to express many important types of notation) and semantically less clean, so in the long term we should move towards always <math>. In the short term, the template-based system has some small advantages in terms of more consistent font usage than <math> but in this specific case I think even those advantages are negated by the ugliness of its formatting (too little vertical spacing between digits and the fraction bar). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneeded inline &lt;math> usage 

message: I think we should update the section "Abridged example of a typical entry" because it is too old. Yifan Xie (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it.  We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.   - CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating this article 

message: At the end of the second paragraph, we read that: "As of January 2022, it contains over 350,000 sequences, making it the largest database of its kind."
At the end of History section, we read that: "...by end of July 2020 the database contained more than 336,000 sequences."
There is no source provided for either of these statements.
1. Are there any reliable, secondary sources for the size of the database? If so, they should be included and the two statements should be synced. If not, both statements should be deleted.
2. Assuming that there is a source for the first statement, what evidence exists to support the claim that it is "the largest database of its kind?" Indeed, what evidence is there that there are any other databases of its kind? 76.14.122.5 (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of database 

message: TWPK's FOUR
first 128 numbers: 2, 4, 4, 3, 1, 2, 4, 3, 3, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 6, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 6, 6, 5, 3, 3, 6, 5, 5, 3, 6, 6, 5, 5, 3, 3, 6, 5, 5, 3, 6 (first appearance I found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruI5Olajj3w&t=3434s) 84.151.252.41 (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! This isn't the right place to submit a sequence to the OEIS. If you want to do that, register at the OEIS, read the new user information, and submit a sequence there. If you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia, keep in mind that it does not accept original research in general. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  new sequence 

message: Because 1x is always 1, the lowest possible base is base 2, so A095646 and A095647 need to be corrected.
source for the correct numbers from bases 3 to 10: https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/number/base-converter.html
A095646 after the correction: 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111, 202201102121002021012000211012011021221022212021111001022110211020010021100121010, 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333, 11031110441201303134210404233413032443021130230130231310, 23053353530155550541354043543542243325553444410303, 3115512162124626343001006330151620356026315303, 3777777777777777777777777777777777777777777, 22642532235024164257285244038424203240533, 340282366920938463463374607431768211455
A095647 after the correction: 340282366920938463463374607431768211455, 22642532235024164257285244038424203240533, 3777777777777777777777777777777777777777777, 3115512162124626343001006330151620356026315303, 23053353530155550541354043543542243325553444410303, 11031110441201303134210404233413032443021130230130231310, 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333, 202201102121002021012000211012011021221022212021111001022110211020010021100121010, 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 94.31.82.138 (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place to correct OEIS. OEIS has its own editorial procedure. You have to create an account there and propose a correction. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A095646 and A095647 need to be corrected. 

message: The Table of Primes from 1 to 1000000000000 link in the links section of A000040 needs an output size warning, like the Index entries for sequences related to divisors of numbers link in the links section of A174670 (The warning is "Output is ~13 GB." and is in the prog section of A174670.).
In fact, the list of primes from 1 to 1000000000000 is even larger (about 34.3588 times more data and 88.5957 times more entries) than the list of divisors of 808017424794512875886459904961710757005754368000000000 (There are 37607912018 primes from 1 to 1000000000000!).
warning for the Table of Primes from 1 to 1000000000000 link in the links section of A000040: "Output is ~446.66 GB." 94.31.83.138 (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing warning in the links section of A000040