Jump to content

Regular language: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Complexity results: palindromes
Line 26: Line 26:
== Complexity results ==
== Complexity results ==


In [[computational complexity theory]], the [[complexity class]] of all regular languages is sometimes referred to as '''REGULAR''' or '''REG''' and equals [[DSPACE]](O(1)), the [[decision problem]]s that can be solved in constant space (the space used is independent of the input size). '''REGULAR''' ≠ [[AC0|'''AC'''<sup>0</sup>]], since it (trivially) contains the parity problem of determining whether the number of 1 bits in the input is even or odd and this problem is not in '''AC'''<sup>0</sup>.<ref>M. Furst, J. B. Saxe, and M. Sipser. Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Math. Systems Theory, 17:13–27, 1984.</ref> On the other hand, it is not known to contain '''AC'''<sup>0</sup>.
In [[computational complexity theory]], the [[complexity class]] of all regular languages is sometimes referred to as '''REGULAR''' or '''REG''' and equals [[DSPACE]](O(1)), the [[decision problem]]s that can be solved in constant space (the space used is independent of the input size). '''REGULAR''' ≠ [[AC0|'''AC'''<sup>0</sup>]], since it (trivially) contains the parity problem of determining whether the number of 1 bits in the input is even or odd and this problem is not in '''AC'''<sup>0</sup>.<ref>M. Furst, J. B. Saxe, and M. Sipser. Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Math. Systems Theory, 17:13–27, 1984.</ref> On the other hand, '''REGULAR''' does not contain '''AC'''<sup>0</sup>, because the nonregular language of [[palindrome]]s can be recognized in '''AC'''<sup>0</sup>.


If a language is ''not'' regular, it requires a machine with at least [[Big O notation|&Omega;]](log log ''n'') space to recognize (where ''n'' is the input size).<ref>J. Hartmanis, P. L. Lewis II, and R. E. Stearns. Hierarchies of memory-limited computations. ''Proceedings of the 6th Annual IEEE Symposium on Switching Circuit Theory and Logic Design'', pp. 179&ndash;190. 1965.</ref> In other words, DSPACE([[Big O notation|o]](log log ''n'')) equals the class of regular languages. In practice, most nonregular problems are solved by machines taking at least [[logarithmic space]].
If a language is ''not'' regular, it requires a machine with at least [[Big O notation|&Omega;]](log log ''n'') space to recognize (where ''n'' is the input size).<ref>J. Hartmanis, P. L. Lewis II, and R. E. Stearns. Hierarchies of memory-limited computations. ''Proceedings of the 6th Annual IEEE Symposium on Switching Circuit Theory and Logic Design'', pp. 179&ndash;190. 1965.</ref> In other words, DSPACE([[Big O notation|o]](log log ''n'')) equals the class of regular languages. In practice, most nonregular problems are solved by machines taking at least [[logarithmic space]].

Revision as of 02:56, 30 September 2011

In theoretical computer science, a regular language is a formal language (i.e., a possibly infinite set of finite sequences of symbols from a finite alphabet) that satisfies the following equivalent properties:

Regular languages

The collection of regular languages over an alphabet Σ is defined recursively as follows:

  • The empty language Ø is a regular language.
  • The empty string language {ε} is a regular language.
  • For each a ∈ Σ (a belongs to Σ), the singleton language {a} is a regular language.
  • If A and B are regular languages, then AB (union), AB (concatenation), and A* (Kleene star) are regular languages.
  • No other languages over Σ are regular.

All finite languages are regular. Other typical examples include the language consisting of all strings over the alphabet {a, b} which contain an even number of as, or the language consisting of all strings of the form: several as followed by several bs.

A simple example of a language that is not regular is the set of strings . This is because in this language, the number of as controls the number of bs, which is not allowed by any of the above rules.

Complexity results

In computational complexity theory, the complexity class of all regular languages is sometimes referred to as REGULAR or REG and equals DSPACE(O(1)), the decision problems that can be solved in constant space (the space used is independent of the input size). REGULARAC0, since it (trivially) contains the parity problem of determining whether the number of 1 bits in the input is even or odd and this problem is not in AC0.[1] On the other hand, REGULAR does not contain AC0, because the nonregular language of palindromes can be recognized in AC0.

If a language is not regular, it requires a machine with at least Ω(log log n) space to recognize (where n is the input size).[2] In other words, DSPACE(o(log log n)) equals the class of regular languages. In practice, most nonregular problems are solved by machines taking at least logarithmic space.

Closure properties

The regular languages are closed under the various operations, that is, if the languages K and L are regular, so is the result of the following operations:

  • the set theoretic Boolean operations: union , intersection , and complement . From this also difference follows.
  • the regular operations: union , concatenation , and Kleene star .
  • the trio operations: string homomorphism, inverse string homomorphism, and intersection with regular languages. As a consequence they are closed under arbitrary finite state transductions, like quotient with a regular language. Even more, regular languages are closed under quotients with arbitrary languages: If L is regular then L/K is regular for any K.
  • the reverse (or mirror image) .

Deciding whether a language is regular

To locate the regular languages in the Chomsky hierarchy, one notices that every regular language is context-free. The converse is not true: for example the language consisting of all strings having the same number of a's as b's is context-free but not regular. To prove that a language such as this is not regular, one uses the Myhill–Nerode theorem or the pumping lemma.

There are two purely algebraic approaches to define regular languages. If:

  • Σ is a finite alphabet,
  • Σ* denotes the free monoid over Σ consisting of all strings over Σ,
  • f : Σ* → M is a monoid homomorphism where M is a finite monoid,
  • S is a subset of M

then the set is regular. Every regular language arises in this fashion.

If L is any subset of Σ*, one defines an equivalence relation ~ (called the syntactic relation) on Σ* as follows: u ~ v is defined to mean

uwL if and only if vwL for all w ∈ Σ*

The language L is regular if and only if the number of equivalence classes of ~ is finite (A proof of this is provided in the article on the syntactic monoid). When a language is regular, then the number of equivalence classes is equal to the number of states of the minimal deterministic finite automaton accepting L.

A similar set of statements can be formulated for a monoid . In this case, equivalence over M leads to the concept of a recognizable language.

Finite languages

A specific subset within the class of regular languages is the finite languages – those containing only a finite number of words. These are regular languages, as one can create a regular expression that is the union of every word in the language.

The number of words in a regular language

For any regular language there exist constants and polynomials such that for every the number of words of length in satisfies the equation . Thus, a non-regularity of some language can be proved by counting the words in . Consider, for example, the Dyck language of strings of balanced parentheses. The number of words of length in the Dyck language is equal to the Catalan number , which is not of the form , witnessing the non-regularity of the Dyck language.

See also

References

  • Michael Sipser (1997). Introduction to the Theory of Computation. PWS Publishing. ISBN 0-534-94728-X. Chapter 1: Regular Languages, pp.31–90. Subsection "Decidable Problems Concerning Regular Languages" of section 4.1: Decidable Languages, pp.152–155.
  1. ^ M. Furst, J. B. Saxe, and M. Sipser. Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Math. Systems Theory, 17:13–27, 1984.
  2. ^ J. Hartmanis, P. L. Lewis II, and R. E. Stearns. Hierarchies of memory-limited computations. Proceedings of the 6th Annual IEEE Symposium on Switching Circuit Theory and Logic Design, pp. 179–190. 1965.