4,700 research outputs found
Syntactic Complexities of Six Classes of Star-Free Languages
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 (nā1)! for ļ¬nite/coļ¬nite and re-verse deļ¬nite languages, and a lower bound of āeĀ·(nā1)!ā 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 ānearly 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
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 (nā1)! for ļ¬nite/coļ¬nite and re-verse deļ¬nite languages, and a lower bound of āeĀ·(nā1)!ā 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 ānearly 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
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 left quotients; equivalently, we
look for the largest transition semigroup of an aperiodic finite automaton with
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 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 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
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
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
Most Complex Non-Returning Regular Languages
A regular language 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
there exists a ternary witness of state complexity 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 elements and requires at least
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
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¦