I have understood that L={wxw^r|w,x belongs to {a,b}^* } is regular because it turns out to be the pattern of starting and ending with same symbol but I am not getting the proper explanation that how to say L={ww^rx|w,x belongs to {a,b}*} is regular language using DFA design.
Please help me in understanding this!
This is a trick question. The language L as you have specified is the language of the regular expression (a + b)*, that is, any string of a's and b's. The trick is that for any string y = s1.s2.s3...sk where si in {a, b}, we can write y = wxw^R where w is the empty string and x = y. Basically, the trick is that we can always choose w to be the empty string, and in that case we are left with L = {x | x in {a, b}^*}, clearly regular. Another way of thinking about it is this: can you find any string of a's and b's that is not in L? Is it not in L even if you take w to be the empty string?
Related
let L = {wwRu | w, u ∈ {0,1}+}. Is L regular language ? Note that w, u cannot be empty.
I've tried to prove it is not regular language by the pumping lemma, but I failed when w = 0^p1^p, 01^p, (01)^p. Once I take y = 0^p or 1^p, xyyz will be 00.../11.../01^n0... etc.
And I cannot draw its DFA/NFA or write its regular expression to prove it is regular language.
So is L regular or not ? How can I prove it ?
The language is not regular, and we can prove it using the Myhill-Nerode theorem.
Consider the sequence of strings 01, 0101, ..., (01)^n, ...
First, notice that none of these strings are in the language. Any prefix of any of these strings which has even length is of the form (01)^2m for some m, and therefore just a shorter string in the sequence; splitting such a prefix in two either has both substrings start with 0 and end with 1, or else it has the first substring start and end with 0 and the second start and end with 1. In either case, these strings are not of the form w(w^R)u for any w or u.
Next, notice that the shortest possible string which we can append to any of these strings, to produce a string in the language, is always the reverse of itself followed by either 0 or 1. That is, to turn 01 into a string in the language, we must append 100 or 101; there are no shorter strings we can append to 01 to get a string in the language. The same holds true for 0101: 10100 and 10101 are the shortest possible strings that take 0101 to a string in L. And so on for each string of the form (01)^n.
This means that each string of the form (01)^n is distinguishable with respect to the target language w(w^R)u. The Myhill-Nerode theorem tells us that a minimal DFA for a regular language has exactly as many states as there are equivalence classes under the indistinguishability relation. Because we have infinitely many distinguishable strings with respect to our language, a minimal DFA for this language must have infinitely many states. But, a DFA cannot have infinitely many states; this is a contradiction. This means that our language cannot be regular.
The language is REGULAR:
L = 00(0+1)+ + 11(0+1)+ + 0(11)+0(0+1)+ + 1(00)+1(0+1)+
I'm trying to prove that the complement of L= {a^i b^i c^i : i >= 1} is a context free. L complement is: {w is a word over {a,b,c}* : w not in L}.
As we know, context-free languages are closed under union. So, I'm trying to divide my language (complement of {a^i b^i c^i}) into context-free subsets in which their union must be context-free. Could anyone help me to find the subsets? Each time I try to, I end up with L*!
Thank you.
Note: In the following, I left out the constraint that L does not include the empty string, but that only requires a small adjustment.
Consider aibjck.
If i=j and j=k then you have aibici. Conversely, if i≠j or j≠k, then you have the part of the complement of aibici which consists of strings in a*b*c* (the rest of the complement is straight-forward).
In other words,
L = { aibjck | i=j } ∩ { aibjck | j=k }
and
L' = { aibjck | i≠j } ∪ { aibjck | j≠k }
It's easy to show that each subset in the above equations is context-free. As you say, context-free languages are closed under union, but they are not closed under intersection; consequently, L' is context-free even though L is not.
I'm currently reading Implementing functional languages: a tutorial by SPJ and the (sub)chapter I'll be referring to in this question is 3.8.7 (page 136).
The first remark there is that a reader following the tutorial has not yet implemented C scheme compilation (that is, of expressions appearing in non-strict contexts) of ECase expressions.
The solution proposed is to transform a Core program so that ECase expressions simply never appear in non-strict contexts. Specifically, each such occurrence creates a new supercombinator with exactly one variable which body corresponds to the original ECase expression, and the occurrence itself is replaced with a call to that supercombinator.
Below I present a (slightly modified) example of such transformation from 1
t a b = Pack{2,1} ;
f x = Pack{2,2} (case t x 7 6 of
<1> -> 1;
<2> -> 2) Pack{1,0} ;
main = f 3
== transformed into ==>
t a b = Pack{2,1} ;
f x = Pack{2,2} ($Case1 (t x 7 6)) Pack{1,0} ;
$Case1 x = case x of
<1> -> 1;
<2> -> 2 ;
main = f 3
I implemented this solution and it works like charm, that is, the output is Pack{2,2} 2 Pack{1,0}.
However, what I don't understand is - why all that trouble? I hope it's not just me, but the first thought I had of solving the problem was to just implement compilation of ECase expressions in C scheme. And I did it by mimicking the rule for compilation in E scheme (page 134 in 1 but I present that rule here for completeness): so I used
E[[case e of alts]] p = E[[e]] p ++ [Casejump D[[alts]] p]
and wrote
C[[case e of alts]] p = C[[e]] p ++ [Eval] ++ [Casejump D[[alts]] p]
I added [Eval] because Casejump needs an argument on top of the stack in weak head normal form (WHNF) and C scheme doesn't guarantee that, as opposed to E scheme.
But then the output changes to enigmatic: Pack{2,2} 2 6.
The same applies when I use the same rule as for E scheme, i.e.
C[[case e of alts]] p = E[[e]] p ++ [Casejump D[[alts]] p]
So I guess that my "obvious" solution is inherently wrong - and I can see that from outputs. But I'm having trouble stating formal arguments as to why that approach was bound to fail.
Can someone provide me with such argument/proof or some intuition as to why the naive approach doesn't work?
The purpose of the C scheme is to not perform any computation, but just delay everything until an EVAL happens (which it might or might not). What are you doing in your proposed code generation for case? You're calling EVAL! And the whole purpose of C is to not call EVAL on anything, so you've now evaluated something prematurely.
The only way you could generate code directly for case in the C scheme would be to add some new instruction to perform the case analysis once it's evaluated.
But we (Thomas Johnsson and I) decided it was simpler to just lift out such expressions. The exact historical details are lost in time though. :)
Im looking forward to design a FA which accepts some kind of string that accept some A and B.
First a string which the number of A is five more times higher than B.
i mean L={w∈{A,B}* and (nA(W)-nB(W) mod 5=0)
And also a FA which accept different number of character in a string:
L={A^n B^m C^k | n,k>0 and m>3}
I design some FAs But they did not work perfectly on this complicated strings.
Any help on how should i design this ?
Unfortunately, your questions are confusing as the english text doesn't agree with the mathematical formula. I will try to answer to these four questions then:
A language which consists of string over {a,b} that the number of a (= #a(w))
is five times as the number of b ( #b(w)),
L = { w in {a,b}* : #a(w)>#b(w) and #a(w)=#b(w)mod5 }
This cannot be done by an NFA. The proof is simple by using the pumping lemma (P.L) with the string a^pb^5p, where p is the constant of P.L.
For the language: L={w∈{A,B}* : (nA(W)-nB(W)) mod 5=0} that you wrote,
you can do it with an DFA that consists of a cycle of 5 states.
The transitions are, if you read a go clockwise if you read b go counter-clocwise. Choose at random one state to be initial state and the same state will be the final state.
For the language L={A^n B^m C^k | n,k>0 and m>3}, it should be easy to find out
if you read L as L=A(A)* B(B)* c^4(C)*
For the language that accepts different number of character in the string (let's say over a,b). The language should be R={ w in {a,b}* : #a(w) not equal #b(w)}
This language again it cannot be recognized by an NFA. If this language was regular (recognzied by an NFA) so would be this language:
L=a*b* intersection (R complement). The language L is {a^n b^n/ n non-negative integer}.
The language L is the first example of most books when they speak about languages that are non-regular.
Hopefully, you will find this answer helpful.
CS student slogging through a logic class. This question has me befuddled
Inductively Defining Sets of Strings
Find an inductive definition for the following set of strings:
S = {apbcr | p is a natural number, and r is a natural number greater than 0} *the p and r are superscripts*
I'd suggest the following definition: