Already have an account? Get multiple benefits of using own account!
Login in your account..!
Remember me
Don't have an account? Create your account in less than a minutes,
Forgot password? how can I recover my password now!
Enter right registered email to receive password!
Applying the pumping lemma is not fundamentally di?erent than applying (general) su?x substitution closure or the non-counting property. The pumping lemma is a little more complicated-rather than just the single universal quanti?er ("for all languages L") and single existential quanti?er ("there exists n"), we have a nest of alternating quanti?ers (denoting "for all" as ∀ and "there exists" as ∃):
(∀L)[L regular ⇒
(∃n)[
(∀x)[x ∈ L and |x| ≥ n ⇒
(∃u, v,w)[x = uvw and
|uv| ≤ n and
|v| ≥ 1 and
(∀i ≥ 0)[uviw ∈ L]]]]].
Just as with the lemmas for the local languages, we will approach this as an adversary game. Our proof will consist of a strategy for showing that L fails to satisfy the pumping lemma. Our choices are the "for all"s; the "there exists"s are our adversary's choices. There are just a few more rounds in this game than there were in the lemmas for the local languages. The key things are being clear about which are our choices and which are the adversary's and making sure that our strategy accounts for every legal choice the adversarymight make.
The game starts with our choice of the L we wish to prove to be non regular. Our adversary then chooses some n, we choose a string x ∈ L of length at least n, etc. We win if, at the end of this process, we can choose i such that uviw ∈ L. Of course, our strategy at each step will depend on the choices our adversary has made.
What we end up with is a proof by contradiction. For instance:
To show that Lab = {ajbj| j ≥ 0} is not regular.
1. Does above all''s properties can be used to prove a language regular? 2..which of the properties can be used to prove a language regular and which of these not? 3..Identify one
Suppose A = (Q,Σ, T, q 0 , F) is a DFA and that Q = {q 0 , q 1 , . . . , q n-1 } includes n states. Thinking of the automaton in terms of its transition graph, a string x is recogn
s-> AACD A-> aAb/e C->aC/a D-> aDa/bDb/e
Strictly 2-local automata are based on lookup tables that are sets of 2-factors, the pairs of adjacent symbols which are permitted to occur in a word. To generalize, we extend the
The initial ID of the automaton given in Figure 3, running on input ‘aabbba' is (A, aabbba) The ID after the ?rst three transitions of the computation is (F, bba) The p
Both L 1 and L 2 are SL 2 . (You should verify this by thinking about what the automata look like.) We claim that L 1 ∪ L 2 ∈ SL 2 . To see this, suppose, by way of con
It is not hard to see that ε-transitions do not add to the accepting power of the model. The underlying idea is that whenever an ID (q, σ v) directly computes another (p, v) via
We have now de?ned classes of k-local languages for all k ≥ 2. Together, these classes form the Strictly Local Languages in general. De?nition (Strictly Local Languages) A langu
Intuitively, closure of SL 2 under intersection is reasonably easy to see, particularly if one considers the Myhill graphs of the automata. Any path through both graphs will be a
When we study computability we are studying problems in an abstract sense. For example, addition is the problem of, having been given two numbers, returning a third number that is
Get guaranteed satisfaction & time on delivery in every assignment order you paid with us! We ensure premium quality solution document along with free turntin report!
whatsapp: +1-415-670-9521
Phone: +1-415-670-9521
Email: [email protected]
All rights reserved! Copyrights ©2019-2020 ExpertsMind IT Educational Pvt Ltd