Kleene closure, Theory of Computation

So we have that every language that can be constructed from SL languages using Boolean operations and concatenation (that is, every language in LTO) is recognizable but there are recognizable languages that cannot be constructed in this way. The one fundamental operation that LTO was not closed under was Kleene closure. It's worth asking, then, how the class of recognizable languages fairs under Kleene closure.

Posted Date: 3/21/2013 3:18:54 AM | Location : United States







Related Discussions:- Kleene closure, Assignment Help, Ask Question on Kleene closure, Get Answer, Expert's Help, Kleene closure Discussions

Write discussion on Kleene closure
Your posts are moderated
Related Questions
The Myhill-Nerode Theorem provided us with an algorithm for minimizing DFAs. Moreover, the DFA the algorithm produces is unique up to isomorphism: every minimal DFA that recognizes

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

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

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


For example, the question of whether a given regular language is positive (does not include the empty string) is algorithmically decidable. "Positiveness Problem". Note that


design a tuning machine for penidrome

Application of the general suffix substitution closure theorem is slightly more complicated than application of the specific k-local versions. In the specific versions, all we had

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