Myhill-nerode, Theory of Computation

Assignment Help:

Theorem (Myhill-Nerode) A language L ⊆ Σ is recognizable iff ≡L partitions Σ* into ?nitely many Nerode equivalence classes.

Proof: For the "only if" direction (that every recognizable language has ?nitely many Nerode equivalence classes) observe that L ∈ Recog iff L = L(A) for some DFA A and that if δ(q0,w) = δ(q0, u) (i.e., if the path from the start state labeled w and that labeled u end up at the same state) then w ≡L u. This is a consequence of the fact that the state ˆ δ(q0,w) encodes all the information the automaton remembers about the string w. If v extends w to wv ∈ L(A) then v is the label of a path to an accepting state from δ(q0,w). Since this is the same state as δ(q0, u) the same path witnesses that uv ∈ L. Similarly, if the path leads one to a non-accepting state then it must necessarily lead the other to the same state. The automaton has no way of distinguishing two strings that lead to the same state and, consequently, the language it recognizes cannot distinguish them. Since A is deterministic, every string in Σ* labels a path leading to some state, hence the equivalence classes corresponding to the states partition Σ*. Since the automaton has ?nitely many states, it distinguishes ?nitely many equivalence classes.


Related Discussions:- Myhill-nerode

Overview of dfa, Explain Theory of Computation ,Overview of DFA,NFA, CFG, P...

Explain Theory of Computation ,Overview of DFA,NFA, CFG, PDA, Turing Machine, Regular Language, Context Free Language, Pumping Lemma, Context Sensitive Language, Chomsky Normal For

Turing machine, Can v find the given number is palindrome or not using turi...

Can v find the given number is palindrome or not using turing machine

Two-tape turing machine, Let there L1 and L2 . We show that L1 ∩ L2 is CFG ...

Let there L1 and L2 . We show that L1 ∩ L2 is CFG . Let M1 be a decider for L1 and M2 be a decider for L2 . Consider a 2-tape TM M: "On input x: 1. copy x on the second

Class of local languages is not closed under union, Both L 1 and L 2 are ...

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

Mapping reducibility, (c) Can you say that B is decidable? (d) If you someh...

(c) Can you say that B is decidable? (d) If you somehow know that A is decidable, what can you say about B?

Formal language theory, This was one of the ?rst substantial theorems of Fo...

This was one of the ?rst substantial theorems of Formal Language Theory. It's maybe not too surprising to us, as we have already seen a similar equivalence between LTO and SF. But

Suffix substitution , Exercise Show, using Suffix Substitution Closure, tha...

Exercise Show, using Suffix Substitution Closure, that L 3 . L 3 ∈ SL 2 . Explain how it can be the case that L 3 . L 3 ∈ SL 2 , while L 3 . L 3 ⊆ L + 3 and L + 3 ∈ SL

Trees and graphs , Trees and Graphs Overview: The problems for this ...

Trees and Graphs Overview: The problems for this assignment should be written up in a Mircosoft Word document. A scanned hand written file for the diagrams is also fine. Be

Automata, As we are primarily concerned with questions of what is and what ...

As we are primarily concerned with questions of what is and what is not computable relative to some particular model of computation, we will usually base our explorations of langua

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