Undecidability of L(A)=L(B)L(\mathcal{A})=L(\mathcal{B}) recognized by measure many 1-way quantum automata

Let $L_{>\lambda}(\mathcal{A})$ and $L_{\geq\lambda}(\mathcal{A})$ be the languages recognized by {\em measure many 1-way quantum finite automata (MMQFA)} (or,{\em enhanced 1-way quantum finite automata(EQFA)}) $\mathcal{A}$ with strict, resp. non-strict cut-point $\lambda$. We consider the languages equivalence problem, showing that \begin{itemize} \item {both strict and non-strict languages equivalence are undecidable;} \item {to do this, we provide an additional proof of the undecidability of non-strict and strict emptiness of MMQFA(EQFA), and then reducing the languages equivalence problem to emptiness problem;} \item{Finally, some other Propositions derived from the above results are collected.} \end{itemize}Comment: Readability improved, title change

On equivalence, languages equivalence and minimization of multi-letter and multi-letter measure-many quantum automata

We first show that given a $k_1$-letter quantum finite automata $\mathcal{A}_1$ and a $k_2$-letter quantum finite automata $\mathcal{A}_2$ over the same input alphabet $\Sigma$, they are equivalent if and only if they are $(n_1^2+n_2^2-1)|\Sigma|^{k-1}+k$-equivalent where $n_1$, $i=1,2$, are the numbers of state in $\mathcal{A}_i$ respectively, and $k=\max\{k_1,k_2\}$. By applying a method, due to the author, used to deal with the equivalence problem of {\it measure many one-way quantum finite automata}, we also show that a $k_1$-letter measure many quantum finite automaton $\mathcal{A}_1$ and a $k_2$-letter measure many quantum finite automaton $\mathcal{A}_2$ are equivalent if and only if they are $(n_1^2+n_2^2-1)|\Sigma|^{k-1}+k$-equivalent where $n_i$, $i=1,2$, are the numbers of state in $\mathcal{A}_i$ respectively, and $k=\max\{k_1,k_2\}$. Next, we study the language equivalence problem of those two kinds of quantum finite automata. We show that for $k$-letter quantum finite automata, the non-strict cut-point language equivalence problem is undecidable, i.e., it is undecidable whether $L_{\geq\lambda}(\mathcal{A}_1)=L_{\geq\lambda}(\mathcal{A}_2)$ where $0<\lambda\leq 1$ and $\mathcal{A}_i$ are $k_i$-letter quantum finite automata. Further, we show that both strict and non-strict cut-point language equivalence problem for $k$-letter measure many quantum finite automata are undecidable. The direct consequences of the above outcomes are summarized in the paper. Finally, we comment on existing proofs about the minimization problem of one way quantum finite automata not only because we have been showing great interest in this kind of problem, which is very important in classical automata theory, but also due to that the problem itself, personally, is a challenge. This problem actually remains open.Comment: 30 pages, conclusion section correcte

On Varieties of Automata Enriched with an Algebraic Structure (Extended Abstract)

Eilenberg correspondence, based on the concept of syntactic monoids, relates varieties of regular languages with pseudovarieties of finite monoids. Various modifications of this correspondence related more general classes of regular languages with classes of more complex algebraic objects. Such generalized varieties also have natural counterparts formed by classes of finite automata equipped with a certain additional algebraic structure. In this survey, we overview several variants of such varieties of enriched automata.Comment: In Proceedings AFL 2014, arXiv:1405.527

Potential of quantum finite automata with exact acceptance

The potential of the exact quantum information processing is an interesting, important and intriguing issue. For examples, it has been believed that quantum tools can provide significant, that is larger than polynomial, advantages in the case of exact quantum computation only, or mainly, for problems with very special structures. We will show that this is not the case. In this paper the potential of quantum finite automata producing outcomes not only with a (high) probability, but with certainty (so called exactly) is explored in the context of their uses for solving promise problems and with respect to the size of automata. It is shown that for solving particular classes $\{A^n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ of promise problems, even those without some very special structure, that succinctness of the exact quantum finite automata under consideration, with respect to the number of (basis) states, can be very small (and constant) though it grows proportional to $n$ in the case deterministic finite automata (DFAs) of the same power are used. This is here demonstrated also for the case that the component languages of the promise problems solvable by DFAs are non-regular. The method used can be applied in finding more exact quantum finite automata or quantum algorithms for other promise problems.Comment: We have improved the presentation of the paper. Accepted to International Journal of Foundation of Computer Scienc

Computation with narrow CTCs

We examine some variants of computation with closed timelike curves (CTCs), where various restrictions are imposed on the memory of the computer, and the information carrying capacity and range of the CTC. We give full characterizations of the classes of languages recognized by polynomial time probabilistic and quantum computers that can send a single classical bit to their own past. Such narrow CTCs are demonstrated to add the power of limited nondeterminism to deterministic computers, and lead to exponential speedup in constant-space probabilistic and quantum computation. We show that, given a time machine with constant negative delay, one can implement CTC-based computations without the need to know about the runtime beforehand.Comment: 16 pages. A few typo was correcte