Talk:2016: OEIS Submissions

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

There's an old Numberphile video about Sub[43]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDYzSzDaHuM --Zom-B (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"All integers which do not appear in the example terms of another OEIS sequence" there is no paradox: it's pecified *another* sequence 162.158.154.133 17:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I am so sorry that this comment is not related to the strip, but is the scaling for the explanation way off? Previously the scaling of the whole website was stretched, but now it is a bit too cramped for me. It happens to the previous strips too.Boeing-787lover 18:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it too much of a stretch to mention that Chris Hemsworth stars in the movie Blackhat, which is also a nickname for an XKCD character? John at work (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The Sub 59 one is also a paradox, it specifies that it should include all of the author's accepted submissions, so it would have to be on it's own list itself in order to be accurate? 172.68.58.233 19:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it would not be paradoxical. If it is accepted, then the sequence contains its identification number. If it is not accepted, that number is not in the sequence. The sequence changes depending on its own status, but there is no contradiction. This is different from e.g. the set of sets that don't contain themselves. If that set contained itself, it shouldn't contain itself, and if it didn't contain itself, it should contain itself. Both alternatives are logically impossible, so the set itself is impossible. There is nothing impossible about submission 59. Howtonotwin (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
If OEIS would bend their own rule and allow a sequence of one number, they could accept SUB[59] , and it will never be out of date as long as they never accept another RM submittal.GODZILLA (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Do the OEIS rules specify that a finite set of numbers can not be expanded later? 172.68.50.112 14:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Finite sequences are permitted. tbc (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
But would they need to be complete at the time of submission/approval or can they be modified at a later stage? 172.68.50.112 09:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The Westside IRT stops sequence is a wonderful piece of trivia. I found the NYT article, which gives as its reason that at that time only infinite sequences were included. I have failed to find the necessary third-party reference to the inclusion of the sequence in OEIS (this, being an open wiki, is unacceptable) to include the point in the Wikipedia article on the West Side IRT. Can anybody supply one? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/t1cur.pdf Scroll down to page 3, which has a chart showing all the stops on the 1 line. JamesCurran (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The Manhattan stops of the IRT line (specifically they normal use the #2 express rather than the #1 local) are a classic "What is the next number in this sequence?" puzzle : 14, 34, 42, 72 .... JamesCurran (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the comment "In UTF-16, a 9 takes up 2 bytes," about the 2 TB of 9s. Does OEIS store numbers in UTF-16 format? 172.68.174.94 21:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC) nprz

It seems unrelated to me, the comic says 2 terabytes of 9s not 2 terabytes of 9s in a string (UTF-16 or otherwise). 162.158.158.33 12:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Helvetica seems to be one of the fonts where all digits have the same width (so that columns of numbers line up). Strangely, there seems to be a kerning pair for "11" that some Software uses. "Helvetica Neue" does not seem to have that kerning pair. (Tested using the simple HTML page in https://gist.github.com/hn3000/bec217afe666b0ee0a0430e976df4d22#file-numbers-by-width-in-font-html ). Hn3000 (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Such a coincidence! I've been working on my first submission all week and wrote an Emacs Lisp program that discovered the third integer pair the day this came out! You get to see it now that I have a number allocated (A316587): 12, 34, 56, 78, 6162, 7879. Can you find the next number in the sequence? Hint: my sequence is a proper subset of A001704. Still editing before I submit for approval. tbc (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I withdrew my sequence. I learned from the OEIS editors that my sequence is "the juxtaposition of terms from A116163 and A116294." The next pair after 6162, 7879 is 6547965480, 8091980920. tbc (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Digits do not have the same width in Helvetica, at least not in the version of Helvetica I have. Using the PHP function imagettfbbox (part of the GD library), here is the bounding box width of single digits in 12pt size: 5 points: '1'. 8 points: '4', '7'. 9 points: '0', '2', '3', '5', '6', '8', '9'. With a very large size (480pt) the differences ar more notable: 166 points: '1'. 302 points: '9'. 307 points: '6'. 308 points: '2', '8'. 309 points: '0', '5'. 311 points: '7'. 313 points: '3'. 318 points: '4'.

For 2-digit numbers in 480pt size I find: 522 points: '11'. 559 points: '61', '71'. 560 points: '91'. 562 points: '21'. 563 points: '51', '81'. 566 points: '41'. 568 points: '31'. 620 points: '19'. 623 points: '13'. 624 points: '10', '15', '18'. 625 points: '12'. 626 points: '16'. 629 points: '14', '17'. The rest range from 657 to 675 points.

In short, sub[44] makes sense, with all the caveats mentioned in the explanation. The phrases `1 to 9 in no particular order, 11, 10 and 12 to 19 in no particular order and so on' are exaggerated IMHO, the order within these subsets is not completely arbitrary. Zetfr 10:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that all nines sequence can be reference to Dilbert strip about random number generator which always returns 9 http://dilbert.com/strip/2001-10-25 141.101.104.77 19:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)qbolec

Okay, it is an overwrought cliché but that joke is actually a lot funnier in 'the original German'. 141.101.105.156 12:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought the all nines sequence was a reference to Revolution 9 from the White Album by the Beatles. 172.69.50.34 12:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Two of these are real:

- PonyToast (162.158.74.165 01:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC))