Talk:Chomsky–Schützenberger enumeration theorem

This is not a bad title (give the theorem's content) but alas I couldn't find a single source using it... David Eppstein needs to write a textbook! 86.127.138.234 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the topic that is notable, not the title. And we have to call it something...do you have some other alternative in mind? We can't just call it "Chomsky–Schützenberger theorem" because that is ambiguous. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

N
It would be desirable to define N, as it is easy to do and would remove ambiguity. (N is used for both {1,2,...} and {0,1,2,...}.) In fact, it would be better for readability to state "over the positive/nonnegative integers" and state directly that the coefficients are positive, or nonnegative, integers. I'm not doing this because I don't actually know what N means here. Zaslav (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the hint, Zaslav. I added the appropriate definition of $$\mathbb{N}$$. An unambiguous context-free grammar does not necessarily generate words of every length, so some coefficients can be zero. Hermel (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)