Timeline for Strongly regular binary sequences
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25 at 8:26 | comment | added | bof | I guess there was nothing wrong with my deleted answer. I deleted it because I thought I must have misunderstood something, since I couldn't see any difference between "strongly regular" and "normal". | |
| Jan 25 at 8:14 | history | edited | Dominic van der Zypen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jan 25 at 8:06 | vote | accept | Dominic van der Zypen | ||
| Jan 25 at 8:06 | vote | accept | Dominic van der Zypen | ||
| Jan 25 at 8:06 | |||||
| Jan 25 at 4:47 | answer | added | Ben Johnsrude | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 25 at 3:19 | comment | added | bof | How is "strongly regular" different from "normal"? Isn't what you wrote the definition of "normal"? | |
| Jan 24 at 16:23 | comment | added | Gro-Tsen | Take a de Bruijn sequence for length $1$, repeat it often enough, concatenate one for for length $2$, also repeated often enough, then for length $3$, etc. I think this should work (but it's perhaps not quite obvious exactly what bounds we'll get). | |
| Jan 24 at 16:18 | comment | added | Dominic van der Zypen | Yes, it would be nice to see an explicit sequence like Champernowne sequence - it is well possible that this one already works. | |
| Jan 24 at 14:36 | comment | added | Aleksei Kulikov | Do you want an explicit sequence? Because, stupidly, a random one almost surely works. | |
| Jan 24 at 14:30 | history | asked | Dominic van der Zypen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |