Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Anti-Power Prefixes of the Thue-Morse Word

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1607.05825 v3 pith:6JTS2E6C submitted 2016-07-20 math.CO

classification math.CO
keywords gammadisplaystyleinftywordanti-powermathcaldefinedfici
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

Recently, Fici, Restivo, Silva, and Zamboni defined a $k$-anti-power to be a word of the form $w_1w_2\cdots w_k$, where $w_1,w_2,\ldots,w_k$ are distinct words of the same length. They defined $AP(x,k)$ to be the set of all positive integers $m$ such that the prefix of length $km$ of the word $x$ is a $k$-anti-power. Let ${\bf t}$ denote the Thue-Morse word, and let $\mathcal F(k)=AP({\bf t},k)\cap(2\mathbb Z^+-1)$. For $k\geq 3$, $\gamma(k)=\min(\mathcal F(k))$ and $\Gamma(k)=\max((2\mathbb Z^+-1)\setminus\mathcal F(k))$ are well-defined odd positive integers. Fici et al. speculated that $\gamma(k)$ grows linearly in $k$. We prove that this is indeed the case by showing that $1/2\leq\displaystyle{\liminf_{k\to\infty}}(\gamma(k)/k)\leq 9/10$ and $1\leq\displaystyle{\limsup_{k\to\infty}}(\gamma(k)/k)\leq 3/2$. In addition, we prove that $\displaystyle{\liminf_{k\to\infty}}(\Gamma(k)/k)=3/2$ and $\displaystyle{\limsup_{k\to\infty}}(\Gamma(k)/k)=3$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On the cyclic regularities of strings

    cs.DS 2019-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper defines cyclic periodicity and cyclic covers and claims efficient algorithms, but the proofs are inadequate and one central test appears to reject a valid cyclic periodic string.

Pith tools