401 research outputs found
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
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
Checking Whether an Automaton Is Monotonic Is NP-complete
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
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 -state CSFA
with two bpis over a binary alphabet is
Unrestricted State Complexity of Binary Operations on Regular and Ideal Languages
We study the state complexity of binary operations on regular languages over
different alphabets. It is known that if and are languages of
state complexities and , respectively, and restricted to the same
alphabet, the state complexity of any binary boolean operation on and
is , and that of product (concatenation) is . In
contrast to this, we show that if and are over different
alphabets, the state complexity of union and symmetric difference is
, that of difference is , that of intersection is , and
that of product is . 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 (); left ideals ();
two-sided ideals (). 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
- β¦