7,256 research outputs found
Complexity of Left-Ideal, Suffix-Closed and Suffix-Free Regular Languages
A language over an alphabet is suffix-convex if, for any words
, whenever and are in , then so is .
Suffix-convex languages include three special cases: left-ideal, suffix-closed,
and suffix-free languages. We examine complexity properties of these three
special classes of suffix-convex regular languages. In particular, we study the
quotient/state complexity of boolean operations, product (concatenation), star,
and reversal on these languages, as well as the size of their syntactic
semigroups, and the quotient complexity of their atoms.Comment: 20 pages, 11 figures, 1 table. arXiv admin note: text overlap with
arXiv:1605.0669
Syntactic Complexity of Prefix-, Suffix-, Bifix-, and Factor-Free Regular Languages
The syntactic complexity of a regular language is the cardinality of its
syntactic semigroup. The syntactic complexity of a subclass of the class of
regular languages is the maximal syntactic complexity of languages in that
class, taken as a function of the state complexity of these languages. We
study the syntactic complexity of prefix-, suffix-, bifix-, and factor-free
regular languages. We prove that is a tight upper bound for
prefix-free regular languages. We present properties of the syntactic
semigroups of suffix-, bifix-, and factor-free regular languages, conjecture
tight upper bounds on their size to be , , and ,
respectively, and exhibit languages with these syntactic complexities.Comment: 28 pages, 6 figures, 3 tables. An earlier version of this paper was
presented in: M. Holzer, M. Kutrib, G. Pighizzini, eds., 13th Int. Workshop
on Descriptional Complexity of Formal Systems, DCFS 2011, Vol. 6808 of LNCS,
Springer, 2011, pp. 93-106. The current version contains improved bounds for
suffix-free languages, new results about factor-free languages, and new
results about reversa
A New Technique for Reachability of States in Concatenation Automata
We present a new technique for demonstrating the reachability of states in
deterministic finite automata representing the concatenation of two languages.
Such demonstrations are a necessary step in establishing the state complexity
of the concatenation of two languages, and thus in establishing the state
complexity of concatenation as an operation. Typically, ad-hoc induction
arguments are used to show particular states are reachable in concatenation
automata. We prove some results that seem to capture the essence of many of
these induction arguments. Using these results, reachability proofs in
concatenation automata can often be done more simply and without using
induction directly.Comment: 23 pages, 1 table. Added missing affiliation/funding informatio
Languages convex with respect to binary relations, and their closure properties
A language is prefix-convex if it satisfies the condition that, if a word w and its prefix u are in the language, then so is every prefix of w that has u as a prefix. Prefix-convex languages include prefix-closed languages at one end of the spectrum, and prefix-free languages, which include prefix codes, at the other. In a similar way, we define suffix-, bifix-, factor-, and subword-convex languages and their closed and free counterparts. This provides a common framework for diverse languages such as codes, factorial languages and ideals. We examine the relationships among these languages. We generalize these notions to arbitrary binary relations on the set of all words over a given alphabet, and study the closure properties of such languages
Syntactic Complexity of Finite/Cofinite, Definite, and Reverse Definite Languages
We study the syntactic complexity of finite/cofinite, definite and reverse
definite languages. The syntactic complexity of a class of languages is defined
as the maximal size of syntactic semigroups of languages from the class, taken
as a function of the state complexity n of the languages. We prove that (n-1)!
is a tight upper bound for finite/cofinite languages and that it can be reached
only if the alphabet size is greater than or equal to (n-1)!-(n-2)!. We prove
that the bound is also (n-1)! for reverse definite languages, but the minimal
alphabet size is (n-1)!-2(n-2)!. We show that \lfloor e\cdot (n-1)!\rfloor is a
lower bound on the syntactic complexity of definite languages, and conjecture
that this is also an upper bound, and that the alphabet size required to meet
this bound is \floor{e \cdot (n-1)!} - \floor{e \cdot (n-2)!}. We prove the
conjecture for n\le 4.Comment: 10 pages. An error concerning the size of the alphabet has been
corrected in Theorem
- …