COMMENTS

Historical note: the sequence might be better called the Oldenburger-Kolakoski sequence, since it was discussed by Rufus Oldenburger in 1939; see links. - Clark Kimberling, Dec 06 2012. However, to avoid confusion, this sequence will be known in the OEIS as the Kolakoski sequence. It is undesirable to have some entries refer to the Oldenburger-Kolakoski sequence and others to the Kolakoski sequence. - N. J. A. Sloane, Nov 22 2017 It is an unsolved problem to show that the density of 1's is equal to 1/2. A weaker problem is to construct a combinatorial bijection between the set of positions of 1's and the set of positions of 2's. - Gus Wiseman, Mar 01 2016 The sequence is cubefree and all square subwords have lengths which are one of 2, 4, 6, 18 and 54 (see A294447) [Carpi, 1994]. This is a fractal sequence: replace each run with its length and recover the original sequence. - Kerry Mitchell, Dec 08 2005 Kupin and Rowland write: We use a method of Goulden and Jackson to bound freq_1(K), the limiting frequency of 1 in the Kolakoski word K. We prove that |freq_1(K) - 1/2| <= 17/762, assuming the limit exists and establish the semirigorous bound |freq_1(K) - 1/2| <= 1/46. - Jonathan Vos Post, Sep 16 2008 freq_1(K) is conjectured to be 1/2 + O(log(K)) (see PlanetMath link). - Jon Perry, Oct 29 2014 Conjecture: Taking the sequence in word lengths of 10, for example, batch 1-10, 11-20, etc., then there can only be 4, 5 or 6 1's in each batch. - Jon Perry, Sep 26 2012 From Jean-Christophe Hervé, Oct 04 2014: (Start) The sequence does not contain words of the form ababa, because this would imply the impossible 111 (1 b, 1 a, 1 b) somewhere before. This demonstrates the conjecture made by Jon Perry: more than 6 1's or 6 2's in a word of 10 would necessitate something like aabaabaaba, which would imply the impossible 12121 before (word aabaababaa is also impossible because of ababa). The remark on the sextuplets below even shows that the number of 1's in any 9-tuplet is always 4 or 5. There are only 6 triples that appear in the sequence (112, 121, 122, 211, 212 and 221); and by the preceding argument, only 18 sextuplets: the 6 double triples (112112, etc.); 112122, 112212, 121122, 121221, 211212, and 211221; and those obtained by reversing the order of the triples (122112, etc.). Regarding the density of 1's in the sequence, these 12 sextuplets all have a density 1/2 of 1's, and the 6 double triples all lead to a word with this exact density after transformation by the Kolakoski rules, for example: 112112 -> 12112122 (4 1's/8); this is because the second triple reverses the numbers of 1's and 2's generated by the first triple. Therefore, the sequence can be split into the double triples on one side, a part whose transformation (which is in the sequence) has a density of 1's of 1/2; and a part with the other sextuplets, which has directly the same density of 1's. (End) If we map 1 to +1 and 2 to -1, then the mapped sequence would have a [conjectured] mean of 0, since the Kolakoski sequence is [conjectured] to have an equal density (1/2) of 1s and 2s. For the partial sums of this mapped sequence, see A088568. - Daniel Forgues, Jul 08 2015 Looking at the plot for A088568, it seems that although the asymptotic densities of 1s and 2s appear to be 1/2, there might be a bias in favor of the 2s. I.e., D(1) = 1/2 - O(log(n)/n), D(2) = 1/2 + O(log(n)/n). - Daniel Forgues, Jul 11 2015 From Michel Dekking, Jan 31 2018: (Start) (a(n)) is the unique fixed point of the 2-block substitution beta 11 -> 12 12 -> 122 21 -> 112 22 -> 1122. A 2-block substitution beta maps a word w(1)...w(2n) to the word beta(w(1)w(2))...beta(w(2n-1)w(2n)). If the word has odd length, then the last letter is ignored. It was noted by me in 1979 in the Bordeaux seminar on number theory that (a(n+1)) is fixed point of the 2-block substitution 11 -> 21, 12 -> 211, 21 -> 221, 22 -> 2211. (End)