From Finite Automata to Regular Expressions and Back--A Summary on Descriptional Complexity

The equivalence of finite automata and regular expressions dates back to the seminal paper of Kleene on events in nerve nets and finite automata from 1956. In the present paper we tour a fragment of the literature and summarize results on upper and lower bounds on the conversion of finite automata to regular expressions and vice versa. We also briefly recall the known bounds for the removal of spontaneous transitions (epsilon-transitions) on non-epsilon-free nondeterministic devices. Moreover, we report on recent results on the average case descriptional complexity bounds for the conversion of regular expressions to finite automata and brand new developments on the state elimination algorithm that converts finite automata to regular expressions.Comment: In Proceedings AFL 2014, arXiv:1405.527

Multi-Head Finite Automata: Characterizations, Concepts and Open Problems

Multi-head finite automata were introduced in (Rabin, 1964) and (Rosenberg, 1966). Since that time, a vast literature on computational and descriptional complexity issues on multi-head finite automata documenting the importance of these devices has been developed. Although multi-head finite automata are a simple concept, their computational behavior can be already very complex and leads to undecidable or even non-semi-decidable problems on these devices such as, for example, emptiness, finiteness, universality, equivalence, etc. These strong negative results trigger the study of subclasses and alternative characterizations of multi-head finite automata for a better understanding of the nature of non-recursive trade-offs and, thus, the borderline between decidable and undecidable problems. In the present paper, we tour a fragment of this literature

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

More Structural Characterizations of Some Subregular Language Families by Biautomata

We study structural restrictions on biautomata such as, e.g., acyclicity, permutation-freeness, strongly permutation-freeness, and orderability, to mention a few. We compare the obtained language families with those induced by deterministic finite automata with the same property. In some cases, it is shown that there is no difference in characterization between deterministic finite automata and biautomata as for the permutation-freeness, but there are also other cases, where it makes a big difference whether one considers deterministic finite automata or biautomata. This is, for instance, the case when comparing strongly permutation-freeness, which results in the family of definite language for deterministic finite automata, while biautomata induce the family of finite and co-finite languages. The obtained results nicely fall into the known landscape on classical language families.Comment: In Proceedings AFL 2014, arXiv:1405.527