Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 37 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 41 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 10 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 15 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 84 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 198 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 448 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 31 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Maximum Number of Distinct and Nonequivalent Nonstandard Squares in a Word (1604.02238v1)

Published 8 Apr 2016 in cs.DM and cs.FL

Abstract: The combinatorics of squares in a word depends on how the equivalence of halves of the square is defined. We consider Abelian squares, parameterized squares, and order-preserving squares. The word $uv$ is an Abelian (parameterized, order-preserving) square if $u$ and $v$ are equivalent in the Abelian (parameterized, order-preserving) sense. The maximum number of ordinary squares in a word is known to be asymptotically linear, but the exact bound is still investigated. We present several results on the maximum number of distinct squares for nonstandard subword equivalence relations. Let $\mathit{SQ}{\mathrm{Abel}}(n,\sigma)$ and $\mathit{SQ}'{\mathrm{Abel}}(n,\sigma)$ denote the maximum number of Abelian squares in a word of length $n$ over an alphabet of size $\sigma$, which are distinct as words and which are nonequivalent in the Abelian sense, respectively. For $\sigma\ge 2$ we prove that $\mathit{SQ}{\mathrm{Abel}}(n,\sigma)=\Theta(n2)$, $\mathit{SQ}'{\mathrm{Abel}}(n,\sigma)=\Omega(n{3/2})$ and $\mathit{SQ}'{\mathrm{Abel}}(n,\sigma) = O(n{11/6})$. We also give linear bounds for parameterized and order-preserving squares for alphabets of constant size: $\mathit{SQ}{\mathrm{param}}(n,O(1))=\Theta(n)$, $\mathit{SQ}_{\mathrm{op}}(n,O(1))=\Theta(n)$. The upper bounds have quadratic dependence on the alphabet size for order-preserving squares and exponential dependence for parameterized squares. As a side result we construct infinite words over the smallest alphabet which avoid nontrivial order-preserving squares and nontrivial parameterized cubes (nontrivial parameterized squares cannot be avoided in an infinite word).

Citations (13)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.