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

Syntactic Complexities of Nine Subclasses of 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 n of these languages. We study the syntactic complexity of suffix-, bifix-, and factor-free regular languages, star-free languages including three subclasses, and R- and J-trivial regular languages. We found upper bounds on the syntactic complexities of these classes of languages. For R- and J-trivial regular languages, the upper bounds are n! and ⌊e(n-1)!⌋, respectively, and they are tight for n >= 1. Let C^n_k be the binomial coefficient ``n choose k''. For monotonic languages, the tight upper bound is C^{2n-1}_n. We also found tight upper bounds for partially monotonic and nearly monotonic languages. For the other classes of languages, we found tight upper bounds for languages with small state complexities, and we exhibited languages with maximal known syntactic complexities. We conjecture these lower bounds to be tight upper bounds for these languages. We also observed that, for some subclasses C of regular languages, the upper bound on state complexity of the reversal operation on languages in C can be met by languages in C with maximal syntactic complexity. For R- and J-trivial regular languages, we also determined tight upper bounds on the state complexity of the reversal operation

Complexity of Left-Ideal, Suffix-Closed and Suffix-Free Regular Languages

A language $L$ over an alphabet $\Sigma$ is suffix-convex if, for any words $x,y,z\in\Sigma^*$, whenever $z$ and $xyz$ are in $L$, then so is $yz$. Suffix-convex languages include three special cases: left-ideal, suffix-closed, and suffix-free languages. We examine complexity properties of these three special classes of suffix-convex regular languages. In particular, we study the quotient/state complexity of boolean operations, product (concatenation), star, and reversal on these languages, as well as the size of their syntactic semigroups, and the quotient complexity of their atoms.Comment: 20 pages, 11 figures, 1 table. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1605.0669

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 R- and J-Trivial 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 n of these languages. We study the syntactic complexity of R- and J-trivial regular languages, and prove that n! and floor of [e(n-1)!] are tight upper bounds for these languages, respectively. We also prove that 2^{n-1} is the tight upper bound on the state complexity of reversal of J-trivial regular languages.Comment: 17 pages, 5 figures, 1 tabl

Logic Meets Algebra: the Case of Regular Languages

The study of finite automata and regular languages is a privileged meeting point of algebra and logic. Since the work of Buchi, regular languages have been classified according to their descriptive complexity, i.e. the type of logical formalism required to define them. The algebraic point of view on automata is an essential complement of this classification: by providing alternative, algebraic characterizations for the classes, it often yields the only opportunity for the design of algorithms that decide expressibility in some logical fragment. We survey the existing results relating the expressibility of regular languages in logical fragments of MSO[S] with algebraic properties of their minimal automata. In particular, we show that many of the best known results in this area share the same underlying mechanics and rely on a very strong relation between logical substitutions and block-products of pseudovarieties of monoid. We also explain the impact of these connections on circuit complexity theory.Comment: 37 page