401 research outputs found

    Syntactic Complexity of Finite/Cofinite, Definite, and Reverse Definite Languages

    Full text link
    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

    Syntactic Complexity of Prefix-, Suffix-, Bifix-, and Factor-Free Regular Languages

    Get PDF
    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 nn of these languages. We study the syntactic complexity of prefix-, suffix-, bifix-, and factor-free regular languages. We prove that nnβˆ’2n^{n-2} 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 (nβˆ’1)nβˆ’2+(nβˆ’2)(n-1)^{n-2}+(n-2), (nβˆ’1)nβˆ’3+(nβˆ’2)nβˆ’3+(nβˆ’3)2nβˆ’3(n-1)^{n-3} + (n-2)^{n-3} + (n-3)2^{n-3}, and (nβˆ’1)nβˆ’3+(nβˆ’3)2nβˆ’3+1(n-1)^{n-3} + (n-3)2^{n-3} + 1, 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

    Checking Whether an Automaton Is Monotonic Is NP-complete

    Full text link
    An automaton is monotonic if its states can be arranged in a linear order that is preserved by the action of every letter. We prove that the problem of deciding whether a given automaton is monotonic is NP-complete. The same result is obtained for oriented automata, whose states can be arranged in a cyclic order. Moreover, both problems remain hard under the restriction to binary input alphabets.Comment: 13 pages, 4 figures. CIAA 2015. The final publication is available at http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-22360-5_2

    Syntactic Complexity of Circular Semi-Flower Automata

    Full text link
    We investigate the syntactic complexity of certain types of finitely generated submonoids of a free monoid. In fact, we consider those submonoids which are accepted by circular semi-flower automata (CSFA). Here, we show that the syntactic complexity of CSFA with at most one `branch point going in' (bpi) is linear. Further, we prove that the syntactic complexity of nn-state CSFA with two bpis over a binary alphabet is 2n(n+1)2n(n+1)

    Unrestricted State Complexity of Binary Operations on Regular and Ideal Languages

    Get PDF
    We study the state complexity of binary operations on regular languages over different alphabets. It is known that if Lmβ€²L'_m and LnL_n are languages of state complexities mm and nn, respectively, and restricted to the same alphabet, the state complexity of any binary boolean operation on Lmβ€²L'_m and LnL_n is mnmn, and that of product (concatenation) is m2nβˆ’2nβˆ’1m 2^n - 2^{n-1}. In contrast to this, we show that if Lmβ€²L'_m and LnL_n are over different alphabets, the state complexity of union and symmetric difference is (m+1)(n+1)(m+1)(n+1), that of difference is mn+mmn+m, that of intersection is mnmn, and that of product is m2n+2nβˆ’1m2^n+2^{n-1}. We also study unrestricted complexity of binary operations in the classes of regular right, left, and two-sided ideals, and derive tight upper bounds. The bounds for product of the unrestricted cases (with the bounds for the restricted cases in parentheses) are as follows: right ideals m+2nβˆ’2+2nβˆ’1m+2^{n-2}+2^{n-1} (m+2nβˆ’2m+2^{n-2}); left ideals mn+m+nmn+m+n (m+nβˆ’1m+n-1); two-sided ideals m+2nm+2n (m+nβˆ’1m+n-1). The state complexities of boolean operations on all three types of ideals are the same as those of arbitrary regular languages, whereas that is not the case if the alphabets of the arguments are the same. Finally, we update the known results about most complex regular, right-ideal, left-ideal, and two-sided-ideal languages to include the unrestricted cases.Comment: 30 pages, 15 figures. This paper is a revised and expanded version of the DCFS 2016 conference paper, also posted previously as arXiv:1602.01387v3. The expanded version has appeared in J. Autom. Lang. Comb. 22 (1-3), 29-59, 2017, the issue of selected papers from DCFS 2016. This version corrects the proof of distinguishability of states in the difference operation on p. 12 in arXiv:1609.04439v
    • …
    corecore