Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the definition of a "sequence" in the context of formal language theory, particularly how it relates to the concept of a "word." Participants explore whether a sequence should be understood as a function or simply as an ordered collection of symbols, and how this understanding fits within the framework of formal languages without relying on set theory.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants propose that a sequence is an ordered collection of symbols, emphasizing that order matters, as illustrated by examples like "tied" versus "tide."
- Others argue that defining a sequence as a function introduces circularity, especially when formal language theory has not yet established set theory.
- A participant suggests that the concept of a set can be understood without delving into formal set theory, viewing it as a collection of elements.
- Definitions of a sequence are presented, including that it is an enumerated collection where order matters and repetitions are allowed, though some definitions exclude the function aspect.
- There is mention of the variability in definitions and notations across different authors and sources in formal language theory.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on whether a sequence should be defined as a function or simply as an ordered collection of symbols. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing definitions and interpretations presented.
Contextual Notes
There are limitations regarding the assumptions about the foundational concepts of set theory and formal language theory, as well as the potential circularity in definitions. The discussion highlights the need for clarity in terminology and the context in which these concepts are applied.