Talk:Longest common substring: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (→Duplicate?: Quotation mark.) |
(→Duplicate?: Elaboration.) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
If not, is it unique enough to co-exist? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 13:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
If not, is it unique enough to co-exist? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 13:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
:It looks like this one only counts consecutive letters and doesn't allow the subsequence to be split. I vote too similar to co-exist. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] ([[User talk:Mwn3d|talk]]) 21:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
:It looks like this one only counts consecutive letters and doesn't allow the subsequence to be split. I vote too similar to co-exist. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] ([[User talk:Mwn3d|talk]]) 21:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
:I know it's not a duplicate, because Longest Common Subsequence produces different results. For example, the longest common subsequence between "thisisatest" and "testing123testing" is "tsitest". The longest common sub''string'' is just "test". Longest Common Subsequence skips characters in the middle of a string, whereas Longest Common Substring only considers consecutive characters. For that matter, the two problems also have separate Wikipedia articles, for what it's worth. |
:I know it's not a duplicate, because Longest Common Subsequence produces different results. For example, the longest common subsequence between "thisisatest" and "testing123testing" is "tsitest". The longest common sub''string'' is just "test". I was going to use my code as an example of dynamic programming in Longest Common Subsequence until I noticed the difference in the algorithms. Longest Common Subsequence skips characters in the middle of a string, whereas Longest Common Substring only considers consecutive characters. For that matter, the two problems also have separate Wikipedia articles, for what it's worth. |
||
:All I know is, Longest Common Subsequence didn't solve my problem, but Longest Common Substring does. That's enough reason for me for it to co-exist. --[[User:Geoffhacker|Geoffhacker]] ([[User talk:Geoffhacker|talk]]) 21:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
:All I know is, Longest Common Subsequence didn't solve my problem, but Longest Common Substring does. That's enough reason for me for it to co-exist. --[[User:Geoffhacker|Geoffhacker]] ([[User talk:Geoffhacker|talk]]) 21:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 21:47, 18 February 2015
Duplicate?
It seems that this is a duplicate of Longest Common Subsequence?
If not, is it unique enough to co-exist? --Paddy3118 (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like this one only counts consecutive letters and doesn't allow the subsequence to be split. I vote too similar to co-exist. --Mwn3d (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- I know it's not a duplicate, because Longest Common Subsequence produces different results. For example, the longest common subsequence between "thisisatest" and "testing123testing" is "tsitest". The longest common substring is just "test". I was going to use my code as an example of dynamic programming in Longest Common Subsequence until I noticed the difference in the algorithms. Longest Common Subsequence skips characters in the middle of a string, whereas Longest Common Substring only considers consecutive characters. For that matter, the two problems also have separate Wikipedia articles, for what it's worth.
- All I know is, Longest Common Subsequence didn't solve my problem, but Longest Common Substring does. That's enough reason for me for it to co-exist. --Geoffhacker (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)