Talk:Order-maintenance problem

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Path labels

Two aspects of the way path labels are currently presented are unclear to me:

In the current set-up, several paths are indistinguishable because they only differ by leading zeros. For example, nodes X and 14 in the article's example get the labels (0221)_3 and (221)_3, respectively, both of which equal 25. I assume that the final 1 should be added _in front_ of the branch labels. In the mentioned example, the labels would then be (1022)_3 and (122)_3, which are distinct.
Why use a ternary system? The algorithms explained on the page do not seem to care about whether the right-branch label (currently 2) is or is not distinguishable from the leaf label (1).

Matzu (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Also, there are no citations in that section. 76.99.148.129 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]