Content deleted Content added
→Be more explicit about eventually-periodic case: new section |
Eric Rowland (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 10:
Thoughts? Happy to make some of these changes when I get the chance. [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 19:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Eventually periodic sequences can only be excluded artificially, since "<math>s(n + \ell) = s(n)</math> for all <math>n \geq N</math>" is equivalent to "<math>s(n + N + \ell) = s(n + N)</math> for all <math>n \geq 0</math>", which satisfies the definition of being constant-recursive. I agree it's worth discussing this in the article, as well as the fact that an "eventually constant-recursive" sequence is constant-recursive, for the same reason. The sequence <math>1, 0, 0, 0, \dots</math> is described by an exponential polynomial, namely <math>0^n</math> since [[zero to the power of zero]] is <math>1</math> when the exponent only takes on integer values. [[User:Eric Rowland|Eric Rowland]] ([[User talk:Eric Rowland|talk]]) 23:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
| |||