1995
DOI: 10.1016/0012-365x(93)00147-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A relative of the Thue-Morse sequence

Abstract: We study a sequence, c, which encodes the lengths of blocks in the Thue-Morse sequence. In particular, we show that the generating function for c is a simple product.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
46
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
(3 reference statements)
1
46
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Observe that T 2 = {2 2i (2j + 1): i, j ∈ N 0 }. Theorem 6 with k = 2 was proved by Allouche et al [3], who also proved that T 2 has the maximum density out of all 2-multiplicative sets. Interesting relationships with the Thue-Morse sequence were also discovered.…”
Section: An Improved Constructionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Observe that T 2 = {2 2i (2j + 1): i, j ∈ N 0 }. Theorem 6 with k = 2 was proved by Allouche et al [3], who also proved that T 2 has the maximum density out of all 2-multiplicative sets. Interesting relationships with the Thue-Morse sequence were also discovered.…”
Section: An Improved Constructionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The sequence (a n ) n \ 1 is the fixed point of the morphism 1 Q 121 and 2 Q 12221 (see for example [4, p. 307] or [55, p. 354]; other occurrences of this sequence can be found in [3,14]). As in the previous example, we deduce that a is a transcendental number (of course a is a homographic image of the number r 0 above).…”
Section: Sequences (1+([na] Mod 2)) N \mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(It is easily seen that this leads to the same formula f k = (2 k + (−1) k−1 )/3, although it was not given explicitly in [7].) Set…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…It should be said that (3) is equivalent to the main result of [7], where the authors used the formula f k+1 = 2f k + (−1) k instead of (4). (It is easily seen that this leads to the same formula f k = (2 k + (−1) k−1 )/3, although it was not given explicitly in [7].)…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%