This site is supported by donations to The OEIS Foundation.

# Talk:Examples of what not to submit

What about the following? Alonso del Arte 21:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Fibonacci numbers with the digits sorted: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 12, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 160, 789, 1579, 2458, 1148, etc.
• Fibonacci numbers starting with −1: −1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, etc.
• Fibonacci numbers in descending order between each power of 10: 8, 5, 3, 2, 89, 55, 34, 21, 13, 987, 610, 377, 233, 144, etc.
• Primes of the form ${\displaystyle 10^{k}+2k+k^{3}}$. Also the corresponding ${\displaystyle k}$.
• Characteristic function of primes that split in ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} [{\sqrt {-105}}]}$.
• Concatenate ${\displaystyle n}$th semiprime with ${\displaystyle {\binom {n-3}{n+1}}}$. Also pick out the cubes from that.
• Concatenate a semiprime with a Fibonacci number to obtain a palindrome with at least two distinct digits.
• Prime numbers with a prime number of digits. (Same thing with: composite numbers, Fibonacci numbers, Catalan numbers, ...)
Please un-strike your excellent first suggestion, it is silly, almost everything with base or worse word has a strong tendency towards NOGI, less, or dead. Your second suggestion isn't too bad, if it's actually used in a book or paper suited for a reference. –Frank Ellermann 13:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that the first one is now A272918, though with 16 instead of 160. - Alonso del Arte (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2018 (EST)

## A-numbers of sequences with me as an author

It is funny that one of my submissions is on this list! Anyway, the sequence of A-numbers of sequences with me as an author is now on my user page. Bobby Jacobs 16:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

## Under what heading would this one fall?

Pseudorandom squarefree numbers produced by a test suite of a program I'm working on.

433502, 281831, 469326, 600006, 11602, 870365, 760310, 857062, 505633, 895294, 877409, 942053, 433153, 712285, 713909, 786367, 780874, 883049, 992869, 903493, 561419, 617054, 832229, 511635, 213814, 418047, 388571, 974089, 780277, 454021, 224715, 946483, 237941, 161669, 239061, 682143, 426549, 956818, 631673, 21617, 639334, 607434, 138955, 927587, 404147, 640774, 497251, 141539, 684986, 834026, 235153, 455289, 98429, 631639, 393689, 213485, 603690, 830566, 525166, 809499, 779321, 717713, 842809, 400037, 640774, 497251, 141539, 684986, 834026, 235153, 455289, 98429, 631639, 393689, 213485, 603690, 830566, 525166, 809499, 779321, 717713, 842809, 400037.

- Alonso del Arte (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2018 (EST)

Deleted sequences would refer to this as "too artificial or contrived" and "not of general interest". I think a new heading would be useful for submissions like this that are too localized -- they really only have meaning for the submitter, or for the submitter and a small circle of friends perhaps. What do you think? - Charles R Greathouse IV (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2018 (EST)

I was thinking more along the lines of "the OEIS has a few sequences of random or pseudorandom numbers, so they probably want a bunch more." Which we don't necessarily, of course. Alonso del Arte (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2018 (EST) Almost all that we have are published - the old RAND Corp. table of random numbers, for instance. But we don't really need more unless there is a very good reason! - N. J. A. Sloane 18:23, 19 December 2018 (EST)
That's what I thought. So do you think we need this example? Alonso del Arte (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2018 (EST)
I've submitted ~3 of these PRNG sequences, where the generator was published in a book or otherwise well-known. Meanwhile I think that was an error, nobody cares about 16- or 32bits anymore, the "famous" PRNGs are completely obscure and obsolete now.
Totally unrelated, I forgot where to note "OEIS in the news" here, but the German IT-news portal Heise celebrated Heegner-numbers and OEIS (addictive) today. –Frank Ellermann (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2018 (EST)
That might be appropriate for Template:Sequences in the News. - Alonso del Arte (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2018 (EST)
Thanks, tested and also reported on Google+. –Frank Ellermann (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2018 (EST)