Talk:Suffix tree: Difference between revisions

→‎definition (take 2): damn it I keep writing it wrong
(→‎definition (take 2): damn it I keep writing it wrong)
Line 59:
:Well, we should discuss it in the wikipedia article. Then come back here.--[[User:Grondilu|Grondilu]] ([[User talk:Grondilu|talk]]) 15:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
:: Why? We are discussing this task, are we not? I am not prepared to discuss all of the issues raised by the wikipedia article. I do not even know that my above proposed example is wrong, in wikipedia terms - I only know that it's wrong for this task. (I would not object to someone with deeper experience with this subject addressing issues on the wikipedia page, but that does not mean that I have that depth of experience.) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 15:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
::: I thought that seeking a definition for a normally well-defined algorithm was out of the scope of RC, but fair enough, I don't mind talking about it. From what I understand, your example is incomplete. The branch in "n" for instance should really have been "ana", as all nodes in it start with "naa". Somehow in the definition there has to be a rule stating that all edges labels have to be the longest possible. I don't know if it's clear in the wikipedia article. Maybe it should be clarified there.--[[User:Grondilu|Grondilu]] ([[User talk:Grondilu|talk]]) 12:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
1,934

edits