How does one use the Nerode-Myhill theorem to prove that a language is regular?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
$begingroup$
Showing that a language is not regular is straight-forward, because all one needs to do is find an infinite set of inputs which has an injective mapping to the set of equivalence classes which compose that language.
How does one show that the set of equivalence classes of $L$ is finite? For instance, how would one show that the simple language $L = equiv 0 mod 2$ has a finite number of equivalence classes?
I think that showing that there is a surjective mapping is not sufficient, because the image may still be of infinite size.
complexity-theory computability regular-languages
asked Feb 19 at 23:49
AleksandrAleksandr
153
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Showing that a language is not regular is straight-forward, because all one needs to do is find an infinite set of inputs which has an injective mapping to the set of equivalence classes which compose that language.
How does one show that the set of equivalence classes of $L$ is finite? For instance, how would one show that the simple language $L = equiv 0 mod 2$ has a finite number of equivalence classes?
I think that showing that there is a surjective mapping is not sufficient, because the image may still be of infinite size.
complexity-theory computability regular-languages
asked Feb 19 at 23:49
AleksandrAleksandr
153
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Showing that a language is not regular is straight-forward, because all one needs to do is find an infinite set of inputs which has an injective mapping to the set of equivalence classes which compose that language.
How does one show that the set of equivalence classes of $L$ is finite? For instance, how would one show that the simple language $L = equiv 0 mod 2$ has a finite number of equivalence classes?
I think that showing that there is a surjective mapping is not sufficient, because the image may still be of infinite size.
complexity-theory computability regular-languages
asked Feb 19 at 23:49
AleksandrAleksandr
153
$endgroup$
Showing that a language is not regular is straight-forward, because all one needs to do is find an infinite set of inputs which has an injective mapping to the set of equivalence classes which compose that language.
How does one show that the set of equivalence classes of $L$ is finite? For instance, how would one show that the simple language $L = equiv 0 mod 2$ has a finite number of equivalence classes?
I think that showing that there is a surjective mapping is not sufficient, because the image may still be of infinite size.
complexity-theory computability regular-languages
complexity-theory computability regular-languages
asked Feb 19 at 23:49
AleksandrAleksandr
153
asked Feb 19 at 23:49
AleksandrAleksandr
153
asked Feb 19 at 23:49
AleksandrAleksandr
153
asked Feb 19 at 23:49
AleksandrAleksandr
153
asked Feb 19 at 23:49
AleksandrAleksandr
153
153
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is just as straightforward to show a language is regular using Nerod-Myhill theorem as to show a language is not regular using that theorem since Nerode-Myhill theorem characterizes when a language is a regular.
For example, let us take the simple language $L=equiv 0 text (mod 2)$. There are two equivalent classes of $L$, assuming $a$ is a letter in the alphabet.
- $left[epsilonright]_equiv_L=leftequiv 0text (mod 2)right$
- $left[aright]_equiv_L=lefts$
It should be easy for you to show that the above two classes are well-defined equivalence classes of $L$. There are no other equivalence class of $L$, since every word belongs to one of two classes. If a word is of even length, it belongs to class $left[epsilonright]_equiv_L$; otherwise, it belongs to class $left[aright]_equiv_L$.
Hence, there are two equivalence classes of $L$ in total. That is, the number of equivalence classes of $L$ is finite. According to the Nerode-Myhill theorem, $L$ must be regular.
I think that showing that there is a surjective mapping is not sufficient, because the image may still be of infinite size.
I am not sure which surjective mapping you are talking about.
As you can see from the example above, it is enough to show that the union of the finitely many equivalence classes you have found contains all words. Why? If we have another equivalence class $E,$ let $win E$. Then $w$ must belong to $F$, one of the equivalence classes you have found. Since $E$ and $F$ share one word, they are the same equivalence class. That is, $E$ has been found.
You may want to check a few related questions and answers such as finding separating words (Nerode) and how I can find all equivalence classes by Myhill-Nerode?.
answered Feb 20 at 0:22
Apass.JackApass.Jack
12.8k1939
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "419"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f104571%2fhow-does-one-use-the-nerode-myhill-theorem-to-prove-that-a-language-is-regular%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is just as straightforward to show a language is regular using Nerod-Myhill theorem as to show a language is not regular using that theorem since Nerode-Myhill theorem characterizes when a language is a regular.
For example, let us take the simple language $L=equiv 0 text (mod 2)$. There are two equivalent classes of $L$, assuming $a$ is a letter in the alphabet.
- $left[epsilonright]_equiv_L=leftequiv 0text (mod 2)right$
- $left[aright]_equiv_L=lefts$
It should be easy for you to show that the above two classes are well-defined equivalence classes of $L$. There are no other equivalence class of $L$, since every word belongs to one of two classes. If a word is of even length, it belongs to class $left[epsilonright]_equiv_L$; otherwise, it belongs to class $left[aright]_equiv_L$.
Hence, there are two equivalence classes of $L$ in total. That is, the number of equivalence classes of $L$ is finite. According to the Nerode-Myhill theorem, $L$ must be regular.
I think that showing that there is a surjective mapping is not sufficient, because the image may still be of infinite size.
I am not sure which surjective mapping you are talking about.
As you can see from the example above, it is enough to show that the union of the finitely many equivalence classes you have found contains all words. Why? If we have another equivalence class $E,$ let $win E$. Then $w$ must belong to $F$, one of the equivalence classes you have found. Since $E$ and $F$ share one word, they are the same equivalence class. That is, $E$ has been found.
You may want to check a few related questions and answers such as finding separating words (Nerode) and how I can find all equivalence classes by Myhill-Nerode?.
answered Feb 20 at 0:22
Apass.JackApass.Jack
12.8k1939
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is just as straightforward to show a language is regular using Nerod-Myhill theorem as to show a language is not regular using that theorem since Nerode-Myhill theorem characterizes when a language is a regular.
For example, let us take the simple language $L=equiv 0 text (mod 2)$. There are two equivalent classes of $L$, assuming $a$ is a letter in the alphabet.
- $left[epsilonright]_equiv_L=leftequiv 0text (mod 2)right$
- $left[aright]_equiv_L=lefts$
It should be easy for you to show that the above two classes are well-defined equivalence classes of $L$. There are no other equivalence class of $L$, since every word belongs to one of two classes. If a word is of even length, it belongs to class $left[epsilonright]_equiv_L$; otherwise, it belongs to class $left[aright]_equiv_L$.
Hence, there are two equivalence classes of $L$ in total. That is, the number of equivalence classes of $L$ is finite. According to the Nerode-Myhill theorem, $L$ must be regular.
I think that showing that there is a surjective mapping is not sufficient, because the image may still be of infinite size.
I am not sure which surjective mapping you are talking about.
As you can see from the example above, it is enough to show that the union of the finitely many equivalence classes you have found contains all words. Why? If we have another equivalence class $E,$ let $win E$. Then $w$ must belong to $F$, one of the equivalence classes you have found. Since $E$ and $F$ share one word, they are the same equivalence class. That is, $E$ has been found.
You may want to check a few related questions and answers such as finding separating words (Nerode) and how I can find all equivalence classes by Myhill-Nerode?.
answered Feb 20 at 0:22
Apass.JackApass.Jack
12.8k1939
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is just as straightforward to show a language is regular using Nerod-Myhill theorem as to show a language is not regular using that theorem since Nerode-Myhill theorem characterizes when a language is a regular.
For example, let us take the simple language $L=equiv 0 text (mod 2)$. There are two equivalent classes of $L$, assuming $a$ is a letter in the alphabet.
- $left[epsilonright]_equiv_L=leftequiv 0text (mod 2)right$
- $left[aright]_equiv_L=lefts$
It should be easy for you to show that the above two classes are well-defined equivalence classes of $L$. There are no other equivalence class of $L$, since every word belongs to one of two classes. If a word is of even length, it belongs to class $left[epsilonright]_equiv_L$; otherwise, it belongs to class $left[aright]_equiv_L$.
Hence, there are two equivalence classes of $L$ in total. That is, the number of equivalence classes of $L$ is finite. According to the Nerode-Myhill theorem, $L$ must be regular.
I think that showing that there is a surjective mapping is not sufficient, because the image may still be of infinite size.
I am not sure which surjective mapping you are talking about.
As you can see from the example above, it is enough to show that the union of the finitely many equivalence classes you have found contains all words. Why? If we have another equivalence class $E,$ let $win E$. Then $w$ must belong to $F$, one of the equivalence classes you have found. Since $E$ and $F$ share one word, they are the same equivalence class. That is, $E$ has been found.
You may want to check a few related questions and answers such as finding separating words (Nerode) and how I can find all equivalence classes by Myhill-Nerode?.
answered Feb 20 at 0:22
Apass.JackApass.Jack
12.8k1939
$endgroup$
It is just as straightforward to show a language is regular using Nerod-Myhill theorem as to show a language is not regular using that theorem since Nerode-Myhill theorem characterizes when a language is a regular.
For example, let us take the simple language $L=equiv 0 text (mod 2)$. There are two equivalent classes of $L$, assuming $a$ is a letter in the alphabet.
- $left[epsilonright]_equiv_L=leftequiv 0text (mod 2)right$
- $left[aright]_equiv_L=lefts$
It should be easy for you to show that the above two classes are well-defined equivalence classes of $L$. There are no other equivalence class of $L$, since every word belongs to one of two classes. If a word is of even length, it belongs to class $left[epsilonright]_equiv_L$; otherwise, it belongs to class $left[aright]_equiv_L$.
Hence, there are two equivalence classes of $L$ in total. That is, the number of equivalence classes of $L$ is finite. According to the Nerode-Myhill theorem, $L$ must be regular.
I think that showing that there is a surjective mapping is not sufficient, because the image may still be of infinite size.
I am not sure which surjective mapping you are talking about.
As you can see from the example above, it is enough to show that the union of the finitely many equivalence classes you have found contains all words. Why? If we have another equivalence class $E,$ let $win E$. Then $w$ must belong to $F$, one of the equivalence classes you have found. Since $E$ and $F$ share one word, they are the same equivalence class. That is, $E$ has been found.
You may want to check a few related questions and answers such as finding separating words (Nerode) and how I can find all equivalence classes by Myhill-Nerode?.
answered Feb 20 at 0:22
Apass.JackApass.Jack
12.8k1939
edited Feb 20 at 1:56
answered Feb 20 at 0:22
Apass.JackApass.Jack
12.8k1939
answered Feb 20 at 0:22
Apass.JackApass.Jack
12.8k1939
answered Feb 20 at 0:22
Apass.JackApass.Jack
12.8k1939
12.8k1939
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Computer Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f104571%2fhow-does-one-use-the-nerode-myhill-theorem-to-prove-that-a-language-is-regular%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown