Re^2: Generic De Bruijn Sequence

in reply to Re: Generic De Bruijn Sequence
in thread Generic De Bruijn Sequence

Is this a guess or do you have a formal proof?

Took me a while to understand why prefer "ones succeeds", and AFAIK only if the alphabet is a power of two.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

Je suis Charlie!}

Comment on Re^2: Generic De Bruijn Sequence

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Generic De Bruijn Sequence by tybalt89 (Monsignor) on Apr 20, 2017 at 17:12 UTC
It's a guess.	[reply]
Re^3: Generic De Bruijn Sequence by QM (Parson) on Apr 26, 2017 at 10:05 UTC
Does "prefer ones" succeed regardless of the alphabet size? My solution is, I think, a "prefer last" solution. Testing a few basic, low valued, parameters appears to give the correct answer. Perhaps if someone has a good head for this, they could suggest some parameter values that break under "prefer last" (or indeed, any other method). I don't have the time to tinker, and besides, I'm not that good at poking around the edges. -QM -- Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of	[reply]
Re^4: Generic De Bruijn Sequence by Anonymous Monk on Apr 26, 2017 at 15:26 UTC
I don't know what this "prefer last" is exactly supposed to mean. But there is such a thing as lexicographically minimal de Bruijn sequence. It becomes lexicographically maximal when you reverse the alphabet. So I'm wondering if you might obtain the desired output by simply remapping the symbols of `MinimalDeBruijn($alphabet_size)`.	[reply] [d/l]

In Section Cool Uses for Perl