English

String Attractors for Automatic Sequences

Formal Languages and Automata Theory 2024-05-31 v6 Discrete Mathematics Combinatorics

Abstract

We show that it is decidable, given an automatic sequence s\bf s and a constant cc, whether all prefixes of s\bf s have a string attractor of size c\leq c. Using a decision procedure based on this result, we show that all prefixes of the period-doubling sequence of length 2\geq 2 have a string attractor of size 22. We also prove analogous results for other sequences, including the Thue-Morse sequence and the Tribonacci sequence. We also provide general upper and lower bounds on string attractor size for different kinds of sequences. For example, if s\bf s has a finite appearance constant, then there is a string attractor for s[0..n1]{\bf s}[0..n-1] of size O(logn)O(\log n). If further s\bf s is linearly recurrent, then there is a string attractor for s[0..n1]{\bf s}[0..n-1] of size O(1)O(1). For automatic sequences, the size of the smallest string attractor for s[0..n1]{\bf s}[0..n-1] is either Θ(1)\Theta(1) or Θ(logn)\Theta(\log n), and it is decidable which case occurs. Finally, we close with some remarks about greedy string attractors.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2012.06840,
  title  = {String Attractors for Automatic Sequences},
  author = {Luke Schaeffer and Jeffrey Shallit},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.06840},
  year   = {2024}
}

Comments

The proof of part of Theorem 18 has a gap which we currently do not know how to fix. The error is our implicit assumption that (*) if a sequence is automatic and recurrent, then it is uniformly (and hence linearly) recurrent. However, (*) is not true in general (and a counterexample is the Cantor sequence). Thus the first two claims of Theorem 18 are currently not proved