| |
| ▲ | AnotherGoodName 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can't you trivially force this to happen for any sequence? 1, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4, Goes to 1, 3, 3, 3, 2... Etc. I could extend this trivially too since the bottom sequence trails the sequence we write up top. If i wanted another '2' down the bottom whatever number i choose up top i just write twice right? So there's nothing about this particular sequence? I can just create any such sequences trivially; Whenever you start a new count, choose a random number and repeat for a many times as needed for the trailing sequence to match the top sequence. It seems that this particular variant is uninteresting in the broader picture right? I could write another similar one 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1 2, 2, 1, 1, ... etc. I don't get the specialness here? | | |
| ▲ | MontyCarloHall 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Can't you trivially force this to happen for any sequence? No, because there's no deterministic way to infinitely extend that sequence. In your first example: 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 x x y y
1 3---- 3---- 3---- 2-- 2-- 2--
What are the values of x and y?>Whenever you start a new count, choose a random number and repeat for a many times as needed for the trailing sequence to match the top sequence. You answered your own question. The Kolakoski sequence is special because it does not just pick a random number: the sequence is deterministically encoded by the run lengths, and vice versa. | | |
| ▲ | AnotherGoodName 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pick any number that's not 4 and repeat it twice. For the next 2 after that pick any number that's not that previous number and repeat it twice. So on. It's not like i had any difficulty coming up with that sequence i wrote to that point. 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 5 5 6 6 8 1 2... as an example of how trivial it is to continue to this. I get that if you limit yourself to '1' or '2' you force the choice of next number but even then there's two possibilities of this sequence (start on 1 vs start on 2). | | |
| ▲ | flufluflufluffy 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I guess you could say the Kolakoski sequence is special in being the “simplest” version of such a sequence (ignoring the finite trivial case {1} xD) | |
| ▲ | MontyCarloHall 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are still choosing random numbers here. The Kolakoski sequence has zero randomness whatsoever. | | |
| ▲ | AnotherGoodName 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do we care similarly about the version of this that starts on 2? 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2... 2, 2, 1, 1, Again no randomness. Just a variant of the above and trivial to continue this. | | |
|
|
|
|
|