Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Is this question acceptable?: Explicit formula for Euler zigzag numbers(Up/down numbers)

Bottom of Page

1 to 7 of 7

  1.  
  1.  

    This question Explicit formula for Euler zigzag numbers(Up/down numbers) needs some (urgent?) attention. It's getting rather testy in there, I'm dubious of the appropriateness of any of the question or the answers so far, but I have to go to bed.

    It also has a flag complaining about Luschny's answer.

    • CommentAuthorjbl
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2010 edited
     
    It's a mediocre question which only allows an answer in the direction the original poster doesn't want to hear. I think Wadim Zudilin should have predicted that "similar but not exactly the same" answers would be rejected; Peter Luschny's answer is just weird, as is Wadim's response to it. Not clear to me whether any of this actually requires a response, or whether you can hope it just floats off to oblivion.
  3.  

    @jbl, is appears you're right, and it's in the process of doing so at present. I was just a bit worried by the fact the everyone involved seemed to be annoyed at each other, and there were flags for moderator attention.

  4.  
    Scott, I wonder whether you can see, as a moderator, that it wasn't me who flagged the post. I don't care too much about crazy comments of Luschny. I've answered the question "Also, if possible, can anyone provide some reference to other explicit formula for $A_n$?", because the author could not follow my very explicit hint to the OEIS. After seeing the sequel http://mathoverflow.net/questions/33498/solving-partial-difference-equation and later comment "The Euler zigzag numbers are secant and tangent number respectively for the even term and odd term" (this, in fact, is what the OEIS link says!) by the author, my decision was to stop all responses from my side.

    I probably should mention the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Bernoulli_number which could give one an idea about Luschny.
  5.  
    I wished to post an answer to http://mathoverflow.net/questions/33510/christening-fermats-little-theorem which extends Victor's and my comments but seeing Peter Luschny there as well canceled my willing.
    • CommentAuthorWillieWong
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2010
     

    @Wadim: I've often enjoyed your thoughtful answers to questions. So while I can understand your feelings, I really hope you will not let this one person stop your contributions to MO.

  7.  
    @Willie: thanks for your support. It does not stop my activity. I just stay selective.

1 to 7 of 7

  1.  
Back to Discussions Top of Page