arXiv++ Combinatorics

Browse math.CO papers from arXiv

String Attractors for Automatic Sequences

Published: 2020-12-12 | Updated: 2024-05-29
Comments: The proof of part of Theorem 18 has a gap which we currently do not know how to fix. The error is our implicit assumption that (*) if a sequence is automatic and recurrent, then it is uniformly (and hence linearly) recurrent. However, (*) is not true in general (and a counterexample is the Cantor sequence). Thus the first two claims of Theorem 18 are currently not proved

Abstract

We show that it is decidable, given an automatic sequence $\bf s$ and a constant $c$, whether all prefixes of $\bf s$ have a string attractor of size $\leq c$. Using a decision procedure based on this result, we show that all prefixes of the period-doubling sequence of length $\geq 2$ have a string attractor of size $2$. We also prove analogous results for other sequences, including the Thue-Morse sequence and the Tribonacci sequence. We also provide general upper and lower bounds on string attractor size for different kinds of sequences. For example, if $\bf s$ has a finite appearance constant, then there is a string attractor for ${\bf s}[0..n-1]$ of size $O(\log n)$. If further $\bf s$ is linearly recurrent, then there is a string attractor for ${\bf s}[0..n-1]$ of size $O(1)$. For automatic sequences, the size of the smallest string attractor for ${\bf s}[0..n-1]$ is either $Θ(1)$ or $Θ(\log n)$, and it is decidable which case occurs. Finally, we close with some remarks about greedy string attractors.

BibTeX

Loading...