Talk:Sign sequence: Difference between revisions
Mentioned that I had fixed the EDP section. |
No edit summary |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
OK, much cleaned up. The EDP section now reads like valid math, and properly describes and references the new proof. --[[Special:Contributions/75.145.68.89|75.145.68.89]] ([[User talk:75.145.68.89|talk]]) 07:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) |
OK, much cleaned up. The EDP section now reads like valid math, and properly describes and references the new proof. --[[Special:Contributions/75.145.68.89|75.145.68.89]] ([[User talk:75.145.68.89|talk]]) 07:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
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.[[Special:Contributions/86.166.175.123|86.166.175.123]] ([[User talk:86.166.175.123|talk]]) |
Revision as of 08:56, 20 February 2014
Mathematics Stub‑class Low‑priority | ||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)