Kleene closure, Theory of Computation

Assignment Help:

One might assume that non-closure under concatenation would imply non closure under both Kleene- and positive closure, since the concatenation of a language with itself is included in its positive closure (that is, L2 ⊆ L+). The intuitive idea is that if we had a counterexample for closure under concatenation that uses just a single language L, then if there was some pair of strings in L2 that invalidates suffx substitution closure-that yields a string not in L2 when the suffx of one is substituted into the other-then that pair would invalidate suffx substitution closure for L* as well. But this argument doesn't work. The fact that the pair yields a string that is not in L2 does not rule out the possibility of string being in Li for some i = 2.

If one thinks in terms of strictly local generation, it should be clear that a language L is strictly 2-local language i? it includes all and only the strings that start with a symbol from some particular subset of Σ and end with a symbol from another such subset, with only  particular pairs of adjacent symbols occurring in between-equivalently, some particular set of forbidden pairs not occurring (see Section 3 of Part 1).

Consider, then L+. Strings in L+ will also start and end with symbols from those subsets of Σ and the adjacent pairs of symbols occurring strictly within the string from a given iteration of L will be only those that are permitted. The only di?erence is that there may be additional adjacent pairs where the strings from successive iterations meet. These we can admit by simply permitting them as well. The question is whether they will allow pairs in the middle of a string from L which should be forbidden. But, since we are only adding pairs in which the left symbol is a permissible ending symbol for a string from L and the right symbol is a permissible starting symbol, everywhere such a pair occurs is a permissible boundary between strings of L. Finally, to extend the construction to get L* all we need to do is add the pair ?? as well.


Related Discussions:- Kleene closure

Chomsky normal form, s->0A0|1B1|BB A->C B->S|A C->S|null find useless symbo...

s->0A0|1B1|BB A->C B->S|A C->S|null find useless symbol?

Reducibility among problems, A common approach in solving problems is to tr...

A common approach in solving problems is to transform them to different problems, solve the new ones, and derive the solutions for the original problems from those for the new ones

Push down automata, Construct a PDA that accepts { x#y | x, y in {a, b}* su...

Construct a PDA that accepts { x#y | x, y in {a, b}* such that x ? y and xi = yi for some i, 1 = i = min(|x|, |y|) }. For your PDA to work correctly it will need to be non-determin

Third model of computation, Computer has a single LIFO stack containing ?xe...

Computer has a single LIFO stack containing ?xed precision unsigned integers (so each integer is subject to over?ow problems) but which has unbounded depth (so the stack itself nev

Automata and compiler, Automata and Compiler (1) [25 marks] Let N be the...

Automata and Compiler (1) [25 marks] Let N be the last two digits of your student number. Design a finite automaton that accepts the language of strings that end with the last f

Concatenation, We saw earlier that LT is not closed under concatenation. If...

We saw earlier that LT is not closed under concatenation. If we think in terms of the LT graphs, recognizing the concatenation of LT languages would seem to require knowing, while

Closure properties of recognizable languages, We got the class LT by taking...

We got the class LT by taking the class SL and closing it under Boolean operations. We have observed that LT ⊆ Recog, so certainly any Boolean combination of LT languages will also

Finite languages and strictly local languages, Theorem The class of ?nite l...

Theorem The class of ?nite languages is a proper subclass of SL. Note that the class of ?nite languages is closed under union and concatenation but SL is not closed under either. N

Pumping lemma, For every regular language there is a constant n depending o...

For every regular language there is a constant n depending only on L such that, for all strings x ∈ L if |x| ≥ n then there are strings u, v and w such that 1. x = uvw, 2. |u

Write Your Message!

Captcha
Free Assignment Quote

Assured A++ Grade

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!

All rights reserved! Copyrights ©2019-2020 ExpertsMind IT Educational Pvt Ltd