Talk:Suffix tree

message: Comment in the article history accompanying an edit from patricia tree to radix tree
:(Terminology: "patricia trie" redirects to "radix tree". Therefore I consider the last term to be the preferred one.)
The edit might be appropriate, but the stated logic is dubious.  The most appropriate textual display term should be chosen before interlinking is considered; redirects do not reliably indicate normative usage, rarely distinguish precise usage, and frequently derive from incumbency effects.  
This edit should be reviewed for semantic validity. MaxEnt 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Untited] 

message: This is considered to be an important historical development in the field of algorithms, so I felt it was important to give a fuller account of the historical developments and major contributions.  People coming to the article might know of this construction in association with any of the principle innovations, so mentioning each of them helps to contextualize the developments in terms of their prior reference point. MaxEnt 01:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Important History

message: Is Suffix trie about the same thing as this? Maybe the title of the other article is misspelt?152.66.129.162 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a suffix tree, all internal nodes are branching. In a suffix trie, they are not, but all edges have length 1. A suffix trie has O(n^2) nodes, while a suffix tree has \Theta(n). Klem fra Nils Grimsmo 05:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference for using "suffix trie" to mean this separate concept, and for the use of uncompressed tries as a useful data structure? The data structure you describe is useful only pedagogically as a step towards describing suffix trees, as far as I know. I've redirected that article to this one, because I don't see the value of a separate article on a useless data structure. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be merged with [[Suffix trie]]? 

message: at first i though it is not a tree at all :P then i realized they just have to help you. but still i do not see how. those dashes are good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.123.194 (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  those dashed(fixme) lines are weird a little 

message: Suffix trees also provided one of the first linear-time solutions for the longest common substring problem.
This suggests that there are other ways of finding LCS's, maybe discovered even earlier. But the LCS article only lists suffix tries and a matrix oriented solution, which is quadratic. Shinobu (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This phrase leaves the reader somewhat hanging: 

message: :Variants of the LZW compression schemes use it (LZSS).
LZSS is not variant of LZW (LZ78), but LZ77. 83.5.92.106 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: This article has a number of references of the form "([6] page 90)" where there are multiple references to different pages of the same book.  Is this really the way we want it to look? RJFJR (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is. I changed them to what I think is a better format. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  format for references with pages 

message: The image at the top of the article contains internal links as dotted lines.  But those links aren't part of the suffix tree, they are part of the method of constructing the tree (and they are used in Ukkonen's linear time construction method while Weiner's method of linear time construction uses a different data structure.)  When I first started on the article I couldn't make sense of them even though I spent some time on it (I had to get a book listed in the references to find out what they were for.)  Since they aren't part of the tree (once it is constructed they can be discarded even if you are using Ukkonen's algorithm) I think we should get a diagram that doesn't contain the internal links and we can save the current image for discussing Ukkonen's algorithm.  RJFJR (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: A question about the following paragraph:
Assume that a suffix tree has been built for the string S of length n, or that a generalised suffix tree has been built for the set of strings D=\{S_1,S_2,\dots,S_K\} of total length n=|n_1|+|n_2|+\cdots+|n_K|.
Why are we taking the absolute value of n_1 etc? It seems like the length of a string must be non-negative. Scientific29 (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that indicates 'length of' rather than 'absolute value'.  RJFJR (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Definitely not \operatorname{abs}(S_i) — that would be a type mismatch. Absolute values are defined for numbers, not strings. |S_1|+|S_2|+\cdots would be ok, because the vertical bars are a standard notation for string length. But, because the individual lengths n_i are used later, and sort-of-defined in this sentence, I think n_1+n_2+\cdots would be best. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute value of string lengths