arXiv++ Combinatorics

We consider three aspects of avoiding large squares in infinite binary words. First, we construct an infinite binary word avoiding both cubes xxx and squares yy with |y| >= 4; our construction is somewhat simpler than the original construction of Dekking. Second, we construct an infinite binary word avoiding all squares except 00, 11, and 0101; our construction is somewhat simpler than the original construction of Fraenkel and Simpson. In both cases, we also show how to modify our construction to obtain exponentially many words of length n with the given avoidance properties. Finally, we answer an open question of Prodinger and Urbanek from 1979 by demonstrating the existence of two infinite binary words, each avoiding arbitrarily large squares, such that their perfect shuffle has arbitrarily large squares.

In 1976, Dekking showed that there exists an infinite binary word that contains neither squares yy with y >= 4 nor cubes xxx. We show that `cube' can be replaced by any fractional power > 5/2. We also consider the analogous problem where `4' is replaced by any integer. This results in an interesting and subtle hierarchy.

It is known that the number of overlap-free binary words of length n grows polynomially, while the number of cubefree binary words grows exponentially. We show that the dividing line between polynomial and exponential growth is 7/3. More precisely, there are only polynomially many binary words of length n that avoid 7/3-powers, but there are exponentially many binary words of length n that avoid (7/3+)-powers. This answers an open question of Kobayashi from 1986.

Entringer, Jackson, and Schatz conjectured in 1974 that every infinite cubefree binary word contains arbitrarily long squares. In this paper we show this conjecture is false: there exist infinite cubefree binary words avoiding all squares xx with |x| >= 4, and the number 4 is best possible. However, the Entringer-Jackson-Schatz conjecture is true if "cubefree" is replaced with "overlap-free".

The well-studied local postage stamp problem (LPSP) is the following: given a positive integer k, a set of postive integers 1 = a1 < a2 < ... < ak and an integer h >= 1, what is the smallest positive integer which cannot be represented as a linear combination x1 a1 + ... + xk ak where x1 + ... + xk <= h and each xi is a non-negative integer? In this note we prove that LPSP is NP-hard under Turing reductions, but can be solved in polynomial time if k is fixed.

H. Friedman obtained remarkable results about the longest finite sequence $x$ such that for all $i \not= j$ the word $x[i..2i]$ is not a subsequence of $x[j..2j]$. In this note we consider what happens when ``subsequence'' is replaced by ``subword''.