Talk:Davenport–Schinzel sequence

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Shor's paper

I am going to remove this reference. Unless the paper is published in print or electronically I don't think it qualifies to be a "reference". Mhym (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need refs

Two places:

"... they appear to have been given their name by Stanton & Roselle (1970)".
"Following Atallah (1985) these sequences..."

I believe that both are plausible, if slightly useless, but you need to add a reference in each case - otherwise it's an OR. In fact, I think the first of these is completely irrelevant so I would remove it. It's like as if anyone cares who named the Fibonacci numbers - we get it, they are due to Fibonacci. Will wait for your response before doing anything. Mhym (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Atallah claim can be sourced to the Agarwal and Sharir book (pages x and 2). I don't have a source for the other one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please make the ref to A&S book. I will remove the other one. Mhym (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]