Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Parikh Motivated Study on Repetitions in Words

2018, ArXiv

Abstract

We introduce the notion of general prints of a word, which is substantialized by certain canonical decompositions, to study repetition in words. These associated decompositions, when applied recursively on a word, result in what we term as core prints of the word. The length of the path to attain a core print of a general word is scrutinized. This paper also studies the class of square-free ternary words with respect to the Parikh matrix mapping, which is an extension of the classical Parikh mapping. It is shown that there are only finitely many matrix-equivalence classes of ternary words such that all words in each class are square-free. Finally, we employ square-free morphisms to generate infinitely many pairs of square-free ternary words that share the same Parikh matrix.

References (20)

  1. A. Atanasiu, R. Atanasiu, and I. Petre. Parikh matrices and amiable words. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 390(1):102-109, 2008.
  2. A. Atanasiu, G. Poovanandran, and W. C. Teh. Parikh matrices for powers of words. (Preprint).
  3. J. Berstel. Some recent results on squarefree words. In Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 14-25. Springer, 1984.
  4. M. Crochemore. Sharp characterizations of squarefree morphisms. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 18(2):221-226, 1982.
  5. M. Dudık and L. J. Schulman. Reconstruction from subsequences. J. Comp. Theory A, 103(2):337-348, 2003.
  6. J. Leech. A problem on strings of beads. Math. Gazette, 41(338):277-278, 1957.
  7. K. Mahalingam, S. Bera, and K. G. Subramanian. Properties of Parikh matrices of words obtained by an extension of a restricted shuffle operator. Internat. J. Found. Comput. Sci., 29(3):403-3413, 2018.
  8. J. Manuch. Characterization of a word by its subwords. In Developments in Language Theory, G. Rozenberg, et al. Ed., World Scientific Publ. Co., Singapore, pages 210-219, 2000.
  9. B. Manvel, A. Meyerowitz, A. Schwenk, K. Smith, and P. Stockmeyer. Reconstruction of sequences. Discrete Math., 94(3):209-219, 1991.
  10. A. Mateescu, A. Salomaa, K. Salomaa, and S. Yu. A sharpening of the Parikh mapping. Theor. Inform. Appl., 35(6):551-564, 2001.
  11. A. Mateescu, A. Salomaa, and S. Yu. Subword histories and Parikh matrices. J. Comput. System Sci., 68(1):1-21, 2004.
  12. R. J. Parikh. On context-free languages. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 13:570-581, 1966.
  13. G. Poovanandran and W. C. Teh. Elementary matrix equivalence and core trans- formation graphs for Parikh matrices. Discrete Appl. Math. (In press), 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.dam.2018.06.002.
  14. A. Salomaa. Connections between subwords and certain matrix mappings. Theoret. Com- put. Sci., 340(2):188-203, 2005.
  15. A. Salomaa. Independence of certain quantities indicating subword occurrences. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 362(1):222-231, 2006.
  16. A. Salomaa. Criteria for the matrix equivalence of words. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 411(16):1818-1827, 2010.
  17. V. N. S ¸erbȃnut ¸ȃ and T. F. S ¸erbȃnut ¸ȃ. Injectivity of the Parikh matrix mappings revis- ited. Fund. Inform., 73(1):265-283, 2006.
  18. W. C. Teh. On core words and the Parikh matrix mapping. Internat. J. Found. Comput. Sci., 26(1):123-142, 2015.
  19. W. C. Teh. Separability of M-equivalent words by morphisms. Internat. J. Found. Com- put. Sci., 27(1):39-52, 2016.
  20. W. C. Teh, A. Atanasiu, and G. Poovanandran. On strongly M-unambiguous prints and S ¸erbȃnut ¸ȃ's conjecture for Parikh matrices. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 719:86-93, 2018.