Paper detail

Observations and Problems on k-abelian avoidability

We introduce new avoidability problems for words by considering equivalence relations, k-abelian equivalences, which lie properly in between equality and commutative equality, i.e. abelian equality. For two k-abelian equivalent words the numbers of occurrences of different factors of length k coincide and the prefixies (resp. suffixies) of length k-1 are equal as well. The size of the smallest alphabet avoiding 2-repetitions of words, i.e. squares, is three and for abelian squares it is four. It follows that for 2-abelian squares this size has to be three or four. Similarly, the size of the smallest alphabet where 2-abelian cubes, i.e. 3-repetitions, can be avoided is two or three, because cubes (resp. abelian cubes) are avoidable in binary (resp. ternary) alphabet. We show that for 2-abelian squares the required size is four, as in the case of abelian squares. The longest 2-abelian square-free ternary word is of length 537. The question for 2-abelian cubes is open. Though, we have computational evidence that the size would be two, since there exists 2-abelian cube-free binary word of length 100 000, meaning that the 2-abelian case would behave like that of words.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.