<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Primitive words and roots of words · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1104.4427/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1104.4427/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Primitive words and roots of words — mentioned by Gehinnn</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44886610</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1104.4427:44886610</guid><pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2025 10:13:31 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;This reminds me of primitive words [1]: A primitive word is a word that is not the (2+ times) repetition of any other word. This is slightly different than a non-pattern word from the article, which is a word that is not a 3+ times repetition of any other word. The anti-pattern game is about extending words such that they do not contain a pattern word. I wonder how the situation changes if 2 times repetitions would count as pattern (i.e. non-primitive words). For primitive words, it is an open problem if the language of primitive words (over any non-trivial finite alphabet) is context free. I…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1104.4427/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.FL</category></item></channel></rss>
