4,700 research outputs found

    Syntactic Complexities of Six Classes of Star-Free Languages

    Get PDF
    Ā© Otto-von-Guericke-UniversitĀØat Magdeburg. This is an accepted manuscript. Details about the final published version are available here: http://theo.cs.ovgu.de/jalc/1996-2015/The syntactic complexity of a regular language is the cardinality of its syntactic semi-group. The syntactic complexity of a subclass of regular languages is the maximal syntactic complexity of languages in that subclass, taken as a function of the state complexity n of these languages. We study the syntactic complexity of six subclasses of star-free languages. We ļ¬nd a tight upper bound of (nāˆ’1)! for ļ¬nite/coļ¬nite and re-verse deļ¬nite languages, and a lower bound of āŒŠeĀ·(nāˆ’1)!āŒ‹ for deļ¬nite languages, where e is the base of the natural logarithms. We also ļ¬nd tight upper bounds for languages accepted by monotonic, partially monotonic and ā€œnearly monotonicā€ automata. All these bounds are signiļ¬cantly lower than the bound nn for arbitrary regular languages. Also, witness languages reaching these bounds require alphabets that grow with n. The syntactic complexity of arbitrary star-free languages remains open.Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [OGP0000871

    Syntactic Complexities of Six Classes of Star-Free Languages

    Get PDF
    Ā© Otto-von-Guericke-UniversitĀØat Magdeburg. This is an accepted manuscript. Details about the final published version are available here: http://theo.cs.ovgu.de/jalc/1996-2015/The syntactic complexity of a regular language is the cardinality of its syntactic semi-group. The syntactic complexity of a subclass of regular languages is the maximal syntactic complexity of languages in that subclass, taken as a function of the state complexity n of these languages. We study the syntactic complexity of six subclasses of star-free languages. We ļ¬nd a tight upper bound of (nāˆ’1)! for ļ¬nite/coļ¬nite and re-verse deļ¬nite languages, and a lower bound of āŒŠeĀ·(nāˆ’1)!āŒ‹ for deļ¬nite languages, where e is the base of the natural logarithms. We also ļ¬nd tight upper bounds for languages accepted by monotonic, partially monotonic and ā€œnearly monotonicā€ automata. All these bounds are signiļ¬cantly lower than the bound nn for arbitrary regular languages. Also, witness languages reaching these bounds require alphabets that grow with n. The syntactic complexity of arbitrary star-free languages remains open.Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [OGP0000871

    Large Aperiodic Semigroups

    Get PDF
    The syntactic complexity of a regular language is the size of its syntactic semigroup. This semigroup is isomorphic to the transition semigroup of the minimal deterministic finite automaton accepting the language, that is, to the semigroup generated by transformations induced by non-empty words on the set of states of the automaton. In this paper we search for the largest syntactic semigroup of a star-free language having nn left quotients; equivalently, we look for the largest transition semigroup of an aperiodic finite automaton with nn states. We introduce two new aperiodic transition semigroups. The first is generated by transformations that change only one state; we call such transformations and resulting semigroups unitary. In particular, we study complete unitary semigroups which have a special structure, and we show that each maximal unitary semigroup is complete. For nā‰„4n \ge 4 there exists a complete unitary semigroup that is larger than any aperiodic semigroup known to date. We then present even larger aperiodic semigroups, generated by transformations that map a non-empty subset of states to a single state; we call such transformations and semigroups semiconstant. In particular, we examine semiconstant tree semigroups which have a structure based on full binary trees. The semiconstant tree semigroups are at present the best candidates for largest aperiodic semigroups. We also prove that 2nāˆ’12^n-1 is an upper bound on the state complexity of reversal of star-free languages, and resolve an open problem about a special case of state complexity of concatenation of star-free languages.Comment: 22 pages, 1 figure, 2 table

    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 Lmā€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 Lmā€²L'_m and LnL_n is mnmn, and that of product (concatenation) is m2nāˆ’2nāˆ’1m 2^n - 2^{n-1}. In contrast to this, we show that if Lmā€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+2nāˆ’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+2nāˆ’2+2nāˆ’1m+2^{n-2}+2^{n-1} (m+2nāˆ’2m+2^{n-2}); left ideals mn+m+nmn+m+n (m+nāˆ’1m+n-1); two-sided ideals m+2nm+2n (m+nāˆ’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

    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 nnāˆ’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 (nāˆ’1)nāˆ’2+(nāˆ’2)(n-1)^{n-2}+(n-2), (nāˆ’1)nāˆ’3+(nāˆ’2)nāˆ’3+(nāˆ’3)2nāˆ’3(n-1)^{n-3} + (n-2)^{n-3} + (n-3)2^{n-3}, and (nāˆ’1)nāˆ’3+(nāˆ’3)2nāˆ’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

    Most Complex Non-Returning Regular Languages

    Get PDF
    A regular language LL is non-returning if in the minimal deterministic finite automaton accepting it there are no transitions into the initial state. Eom, Han and Jir\'askov\'a derived upper bounds on the state complexity of boolean operations and Kleene star, and proved that these bounds are tight using two different binary witnesses. They derived upper bounds for concatenation and reversal using three different ternary witnesses. These five witnesses use a total of six different transformations. We show that for each nā‰„4n\ge 4 there exists a ternary witness of state complexity nn that meets the bound for reversal and that at least three letters are needed to meet this bound. Moreover, the restrictions of this witness to binary alphabets meet the bounds for product, star, and boolean operations. We also derive tight upper bounds on the state complexity of binary operations that take arguments with different alphabets. We prove that the maximal syntactic semigroup of a non-returning language has (nāˆ’1)n(n-1)^n elements and requires at least (n2)\binom{n}{2} generators. We find the maximal state complexities of atoms of non-returning languages. Finally, we show that there exists a most complex non-returning language that meets the bounds for all these complexity measures.Comment: 22 pages, 6 figure

    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
    • ā€¦
    corecore