Hello, De Bruijn sequences are finite words. It would seem logical to include De Bruijn sequences as finite words, since they do fit the definition.
What is the reason for not including necklaces and Lyndon Words there, for example? Are they not also words? Cheers. On Dec 30, 2:25 pm, Sébastien Labbé <sla...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eviatar and Nicolas, > > > Speaking of which, one question for the sage-word people: should De > > Bruijn sequences be output as Words? > > I believe so. Well, if we want to get things similar together. Many > infinite sequences have already been implemented. They are available > here (or in sage/combinat/words/word_generators.py) : > > sage: words.[TAB] > > Object returned are sequences (or infinite words over a given > alphabet). They are slice-able and many other methods for infinite > words have been implemented. Infinite words can be coded by an > iterator or a function N -> Alphabet. Examples are in the following > file : sage/combinat/words/word_generator.py. > > What do you think? > > Maybe we could rename "words" by "sequences" , "sequencesBank" or something. > > > Should the set of all De Bruijn > > sequences be a Language? > > Languages are being implemented in the sage-combinat branch by Vincent > and me. But we use the definition : "the set of factors of a word, > where factor means a finite sequence of consecutive letters". > > Cheers, > > Sébastien -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-de...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.
