Is it true that the language accepted by any NFA is different from the regular language? I just started TOC, and someone asked me this question, I'm not sure what it exactly means and how to justify it, i tried googling it, but no results.. can someone help me with this?
A language L is called regular if and only if there exists some deterministic finite accepter (DFA) M such that
L= L(M)
Let L be the language accepted by a non-deterministic finite accepter (NFA) MN= (QN, Σ,δN,q0
,FN). Then
there exists a deterministic finite accepter MD= (QD, Σ,δD,{q0},FD) such that
L= L(MD)
So we can design at least one DFA for one NFA and as a result, language of both of them is regular.
You can see more information about it in An introduction to formal languages and automata Peter Linz, section 2.3.
An language accepted by a FA (whatever NFA or DFA) is Regular Language!
What's more, regular sets, DFA, NFA, pattern, regular expression are equivalent.
Related
This is a grammar and I wan to check if this language is regular or not.
L → ε | aLcLc | LL
For example the result of this grammar is:
acc, accacc ..., aacccc, acaccc, accacc, aaacccccc, ...
I know that is not a regular language but how to prove it? Is building an automata the right way to prove it? What is the resulting automata. I don't see pattern to use it for build the automata.
Thank you for any help!
First, let me quickly demonstrate that you cannot deduce the language of a grammar is irregular based solely on the grammar's being irregular. To see this, consider the unrestricted grammar:
S -> SSaSS | aS | e
SaS -> aSa
aaS -> SSa
This is clearly not a regular grammar but you should be able to verify it generates the infinite regular language of all strings of a.
That said, how should we proceed? We will need to figure out what language your grammar generates, and then argue that particular language cannot be regular. We notice that the only rule that introduces terminal symbols always introduces twice as many c as it does a. Furthermore, it's not hard to see the language must be infinite. We can use the Myhill-Nerode theorem to show that these observations imply the language must be irregular.
Consider the prefix a^n of a hypothetical string in the language of this grammar. The shortest string which can be appended to the end of this prefix to give us a string generated by this grammar is c^(2n). No shorter string will work, and that string always works. Imagine now that we were looking at a correct deterministic finite automaton for the language of the grammar. Then, whatever state processing the prefix a^n left us in, we'd need the shortest path from there to an accepting state in the automaton to have length 2n. But a DFA must have finitely many states, and n is an arbitrary natural number. Our DFA cannot work for all possible n (it would need to have arbitrarily many states). This is a contradiction, so there can be no correct DFA for the language of the grammar. Since all regular languages have DFAs, that means the language of this grammar cannot be regular.
I have a homework problem that requires you to prove if a language is one of the three:
A Regular Language
Context-Free but Not Regular
Not Comtext-Free
How would you prove each one? I know Pumping Lemma can verify if a language is Not Regular or Not Context-Free, but that’s it.
The example to help me understand better is the following:
{ a^(2n+1)b^(3n+2) | n ∈ N }, alphabet { a, b } where N is all natural numbers.
The pumping lemma for regular languages can tell you that a language is not regular; however, it cannot tell you that a language is regular. To tell that a language is regular, you must do the equivalent of producing a finite automaton, regular grammar or regular expression and then proving it's correct for your language.
The pumping lemma for context-free languages tells you whether the language is or is not context free. That is, if a language satisfies the pumping lemma for context-free languages, it is context free; and if it does not, then it is not. However, you can certainly use it in the same way you'd use the pumping lemma for regular languages and go ahead and find a pushdown automaton or context-free grammar instead.
In your case, we can first choose the string a^(2p+1) b^(3p+2) to show that the language is not regular by the pumping lemma for regular languages. We can show the language is context-free by arguing that for any string of the form a^(2k+1) b^(3k+2) where 2k+1 and 3k+2 are sufficiently large, we can always choose v to contain 2 a's and y to contain three b's, so that pumping maintains the required property. Alternatively, we can just give a CFG for it based on the same insight:
S -> aaSbbb | abb
Then we should show the grammar is correct, which is left as an exercise.
According to Sipser's "Introduction to the Theory of Computation": If A is the set of all strings that machine M accepts, we say that A is the
language of machine M and write L(M) = A. We say that M recognizes A ... A machine may accept several strings, but it always recognizes only one language. and also We say that M recognizes language A if A = {w| M accepts w}.
I guess the question has already been answered, but I would like to know if anyone has any thought about it, if there is anything interesting we can say about the subsets of a regular language, if we can say that the original DFA recognizes them and if there is any interesting relationship between the original DFA and the ones that recognize the smaller languages
If the language recognized by a DFA (of which there is always exactly one) is finite, then there are finitely many sublanguages of that language (indeed, if the language accepted consists of N strings, there are 2^N sublanguages).
There is no useful relationship which can be easily inferred from the sub/super language relationship w.r.t. where in the Chomsky hierarchy the language falls. That is: a sublanguage of a regular language may be undecidable, and a sublanguage of an undecidable language may be regular, with all possible variations in between.
Because of this, there is no particularly neat relationship to be worked out among DFAs of sub/super languages: not all of the sublanguages will even be regular; some sublanguages will have simpler DFAs than the DFA of the super language, and some will have more complicated DFAs than the DFA of the super language. Some will have the same DFA but a different set of accepting states.
Given a DFA, there is only one language corresponding to the machine. A language is a set, that is, a collection of all the strings accepted by the dfa.
to express regular languages we use regexp and for context free languages we can use an stack-like memory, I know context free languages have some specifications like center embedding, but still I'm not sure when we can be confidant a given language is context free language? for example why does natural language is not a regular language. is there any reason except center embedding?
Automata theory states that a regular language can be processed by a Finite State Machine (FSM). However, if a language has "center-embedding", then that language is a Context-Free Language(CFL) which requires a Push-Down Automata(PDA).
Importantly, a PDA is a FSM with an additional resource of a memory-like device that is a "stack" or "counter" in order to keep track of the embeddings.
Wikipedia says in Languages that are not context-free :-
To prove that a given language is not context-free, one may employ
the pumping lemma for context-free languages or a number of other
methods, such as Ogden's lemma or Parikh's theorem.
Wikipedia says in Deciding whether a language is regular :-
To prove that a language is not regular, one often uses
the Myhill–Nerode theorem or the pumping lemma among other methods.
why does natural language is not a regular language ?
Chomsky said in (1957): “English is not a regular language”. As for context-free languages, “I do not know whether or not English is itself literally outside the range of such analyses”.
I am adding that English is such a vast language which can't be recognised by a finite machine.
Pumping Lemma is used to prove a language to be not regular. But How a language can be
proved to be regular ? In particular,
Let L be a language. Define half(L) to be
{ x | for some y such that |x| = |y|, xy is in L}.
Prove for each regular L that half(L) is regular.
Is there any trick or general procedure to tackle such kind of questions ?
If you can correctly describe your language L by an NFA or DFA, then it will be regular.
There is a well known equality of NFAs, DFAs, regular grammars and regular expressions, so a representation of L in any of these formalisms should do.
Provide a regular grammar or a finite automaton that matches the language. For the full list of properties you can prove to show a language is regular, see the first lines of the Wikipedia Article on regular languages.