Talk:Deterministic acyclic finite state automaton

message: It seems to me that there is a complication in replacing a trie with a directed acyclic word graph, but this is not mentioned in the article. Specifically, allowing nodes to have multiple incoming edges results in nodes that inherently represent (or store) multiple keys (e.g. both desertion and desertification, as in the article's example). This forces these nodes to be buckets, in the same way that a hash table has buckets for hash collisions. These collisions introduce a bit of extra complexity when growing or shrinking this data structure. When, where, and how should paths in the graph be split (to reduce the number of collisions) or joined (to preserve the storage space benefit)? In short, what are the algorithms associated with this data structure? Can someone with access to the article's reference elaborate on this? JCarlos 04:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trade-off between DAWG and [[trie]]

message: Am I missing something here?  The opening paragraph seems to have an inherent contradiction (emphasis mine):
:"... It is used to represent a set of strings and supports a constant time search operation. The lookup time is proportional to the length of the search string and is the same as an equivalent trie."
Not to mention the fact that a DAWG doesn't look like it would support a constant-time search operation.  --ian (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's constant w.r.t. the number of words in the DAWG. --196.210.102.113 (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in opening paragraph 

message: If I'm reading the definition correctly, paths in DAWGs may also share infixes. Isn't that mentioned in the literature? Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infixes? 

message: In the DAWG on the right (in the diagram), I am pretty sure the O and the A would need to have separate nodes, and not simply be differently labeled links to the same node. Both O and A would link to the same P node and S node though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.75.188 (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm pretty sure the diagram is correct.   –Justin Force 23:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram incorrect 

message: Technically its a letter or character graph not a "word graph" ?  Because the adjacent is expressed between nodes composed of letters of characters?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly Named? 

message: This article seems to conflate two related but distinct data structures: according to DADS, a DAWG is either a DFA that represents suffixes of a string, or a minimal DFA that represents a set of strings (called a "dictionary" or DAFSA by Daciuk et al.). The article describes the latter, but the references mostly pertain to the former. Qwertyus (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed by moving and editing directed acyclic word graph to the current article, then recreating the other article by moving some content there. Qwertyus (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflation of two distinct data structures 

message: There is a dispute over the addition of the external links http://www.pathcom.com/~vadco/dawg.html, http://www.pathcom.com/~vadco/cwg.html and related material .  These appear to be undue, and to have been added by the author of the material in question.  So far two editors have suggested that the material is given undue weight.  Deltahedron (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Talk:Directed acyclic word graph, where the same user left the same long comment. I think we should discuss the issue here, not there, for reasons I stated there. Your "I shall restore the links until we come to a decision" stance is the opposite of our standard practice; see WP:BRD. As for your references to masturbation, and the weak attempt at an insult to my employer, please see WP:CIVIL (although you are improving in this respect: this was far more well-reasoned and less full of empty rhetoric than the emails you sent me previously). I'll just note that the assumption that this is about preventing cheating in my current class is far off base: I don't teach string data structures in a graph algorithm class, it's a theory class that doesn't require coding, my homework policy allows the students to get the answers wherever they can regardless of whether they're just copying and pasting, and I find the thought of preventing cheating by keeping relevant information out of the students' hands to be highly repugnant; it's the opposite of what teaching should be.  (I'm not yet responding to the actual content of your comment, but likely will later.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed external link 

message: The link to 'related data structure' in the first sentence links to itself (this article)  via a redirect. I'm not sure it there used to be a separate page for DAWG data structures, but it now redirects here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knu0 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that; I restored the article at Directed acyclic word graph. Somebody redirecting it here, thinking the two structures are the same. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclic link in first paragraph 

message: Blumer, A.; Blumer, J.; Haussler, D.; Ehrenfeucht, A.; Chen, M.T.; Seiferas, J. (1985) is about the other DAWG. I'd be inclined to refer to How to squeeze a lexicon instead, were I not its co-author. MCiura (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  References