Talk:Davenport–Schinzel sequence

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)

Need refs
Two places: 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)
 * "... they appear to have been given their name by Stanton & Roselle (1970)".
 * "Following Atallah (1985) these sequences..."


 * 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)


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