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.
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.
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.
How does the pumping length of a regular language relate to the pumping length of a related language. For example, if A :< B :< C are all regular languages and k is the pumping length of B, do we know anything about the pumping lengths of A and C?
One might be inclined naively to think that a sublanguage has a smaller (<=) pumping length when we look at finite languages. {a,ab,abc} :< {a,ab,abc,abcd} have respective pumping lengths 4 <= 5. Taking an element out of a set can't make its longest word even longer.
On the other hand if you look at the state machine formed by the synchronized product of two languages, the intersection language and the union language have the same state machine structure, but differ in that the set of final states of the intersection is a subset of the set of final states of the union. Having more final states, could make it more probable to find a shorter path through the state machine. But on the contrary having fewer final states makes it more likely that the state machine has non-co-accessible states, and is thus reducible.
Note first that all languages over an alphabet are related to all other languages over that alphabet by some relation, however contrived. We really do need to limit discussion, as you have suggested, to something like subset in order to meaningfully scope the question.
Now, you've already correctly noted that in the general case, the subset relation doesn't have a clear bearing on the pumping lengths of relative languages. You can easily take a* and compare to {a^n} and show that a minimal DFA for a* is almost always simpler than one for {a^n}.
Let us further restrict ourselves to languages that differ by a finite number of entries; that is, L \ R is finite and R \ L is finite. This is an indicator of similarity different from subset; but if we require that, w.l.o.g., that R \ L be empty, then we recover a restricted version of subset. We might now ask the same question given this modified version: for languages that differ in a finite number of entries, does the subset relation tell us anything?
The answer is still no. Consider L = a* and R = a* \ A, where A is a finite non-empty subset of a*. Even still, L takes one state and R takes potentially many more.
Restricting ourselves to finite sets only, as you suggest, does let us deduce what you propose: that a minimal automaton for R will have no more states than the one for L. Why is this? We must have n+1 states to accept any string of length n, and we must have a dead state to accept strings not in the language (of which there will be infinitely many). A minimal DFA will have no loops at all (except centering on the dead state) if the language is finite, since otherwise you'd be able to get infinitely many strings.
Your observation about taking the Cartesian product is correct, in that the result of applying the construction gives a structurally identical DFA for any set operation (union, difference, intersection, etc.); however, these DFAs are not guaranteed to be minimal and the point for finite languages still holds, namely, the DFA for intersection will have no more states than the one for union, before and after DFA minimization of both machines.
You might be able to take the Myhill-Nerode theorem and define a notion of "close-relatedness" using that which does allow you to compare languages to determine which will have the larger minimal DFA. I am not sure about that, however, since an easy way of doing that would allow you to compare to parameterized reference languages to, for instance, easily prove any non-regular language is non-regular, which might be a big deal in mathematics in its own right (like, either it's impossible in general or it would prove P=NP, etc. to do so).
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.
Are there any conditions that a language must satisfy so that a meta-circular evaluator can be written for that language? Can I write one for BASIC, or for Python?
To quote Reg Braithwaite:
The difference between self-interpreters and meta-circular interpreters is that the latter restate language features in terms of the features themselves, instead of actually implementing them. (Circular definitions, in other words; hence the name). They depend on their host environment to give the features meaning.
Given that, one of the key features of a language that allows meta-circular interpreters to be written for them is homoiconicity, that is, that the primary representation of the program is a primitive datastructure of the language itself. Lisp exhibits this by virtue of the fact that programs are themselves expressed as lists.
You can write it for any language that is Turing-complete, however, your mileage may vary.
For Python, it has been done (PyPy). A list of languages for which it has been done can be found at the Wikipedia article.