Talk:Sign sequence

In the displayed formula in "Erdős discrepancy problem" section, what does $id$ means? Is it the product of numbers $i$ and $d$ ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorPorton (talk • contribs) 15:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does the subscript S on the C mean? Something is not clear here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielgauthier (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the definition of the Erdos Discrepancy Problem is borked. See the abstract http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2184 for a correct definition. Oh heck, I'll go fix it in a second. --75.145.68.89 (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, much cleaned up. The EDP section now reads like valid math, and properly describes and references the new proof. --75.145.68.89 (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barker sequences only have low autocorrelation (±1) when they are not aligned. When they are aligned (offset =0 they have autocorrelation equal to the sequence length, i.e. 11 or 13.86.166.175.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to the _wrong_ Elliott conjecture (i.e the Elliott-Halberstam conjecture). The correct Elliott conjecture does not currently have a Wikipedia entry to link to, so somebody more knowledgeable at Wikipedia would need to create it.

-- anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.240.231 (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this. I unlinked this and added a few words of context for the conjecture to help prevent similar mistakes in future, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable in this area would be a better choice for starting a new article on the correct conjecture. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved with rough consensus without clear opposition. Redirect Bipolar sequence created in the meantime to assist search. Argument given by nominator was adequate, and not clearly opposed. The English title should assist in visibility. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

±1-sequence → Sign sequence – I think "sign sequence" is a common-enough name for this concept, and it would be preferable to have a title that uses English text rather than mathematical notation (for instance, because such titles are easier to search for). Because of the difficulty in searching the current title, I can't even provide adequate statistics for how common the current name is in comparison to the proposed one. If we agree to make this move, we can still continue to mention the current name as an alternative in the article text. David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Andy W. (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "sign sequence" first means "a sequence of signs", using any definition of the word "sign". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect from Sign sequence to ±1-sequence would work as well. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- +1. Though I'm not opposed to the move, I think ±1-sequence is the more descriptive name,and should be redirected to. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These have also been called "bipolar sequences", as seen in Complementary sequences and papers like [1]. --Mark viking (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support sign sequences -- I agree with all of David Eppstein's points. --JBL (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For a moment I considered "Alternating-sign sequence", but that could be taken to mean simply a sequence of numbers alternating between positive and negative numbers. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.