This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
"the nth term can always be determined by applying a fixed and finite set of rules to the preceding n−1 terms" -- really? I think it's that the n'th term depends on the output of an FSA given the digits of n in some fixed base, and that this is not the same thing. Zarboublian (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Allouche and Shallitt page 1752 say that this is 2-automatic. Why are arguing about calling it "automatic base 2"? Zarboublian (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The actual phrase that I removed was "Thue-Morse sequence in base 2". This phrase implies that the Thue-Morse sequence could be expressed in some other base - so you could, for example, have a "Thue-Morse sequence in base 5", and it would be a different sequence from the "Thue-Morse sequence in base 2" (just as the number five is 101 in base 2 but 10 in base 5). This is not true; there is only one Thue-Morse sequence, it is a 2-automatic sequence, but the sequence itself is not expressed in a particular base. Gandalf61 (talk)