Kleene closure, Theory of Computation

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.

Posted Date: 3/22/2013 1:01:57 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
#can you solve a problem of palindrome using turing machine with explanation and diagrams?

The Last Stop Boutique is having a five-day sale. Each day, starting on Monday, the price will drop 10% of the previous day’s price. For example, if the original price of a product

Rubber shortnote

Another striking aspect of LTk transition graphs is that they are generally extremely ine?cient. All we really care about is whether a path through the graph leads to an accepting

Differentiate between DFA and NFA. Convert the following Regular Expression into DFA. (0+1)*(01*+10*)*(0+1)*. Also write a regular grammar for this DFA.

Since the signi?cance of the states represented by the nodes of these transition graphs is arbitrary, we will allow ourselves to use any ?nite set (such as {A,B,C,D,E, F,G,H} or ev

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

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

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 complica

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