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
The fact that regular languages are closed under Boolean operations simpli?es the process of establishing regularity of languages; in essence we can augment the regular operations

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.

State & prove pumping lemma for regular set. Show that for the language L={ap |p is a prime} is not regular

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

i have some questions in automata, can you please help me in solving in these questions?

write short notes on decidable and solvable problem

construct a social network from the real-world data, perform some simple network analyses using Gephi, and interpret the results.

Suppose G = (N, Σ, P, S) is a reduced grammar (we can certainly reduce G if we haven't already). Our algorithm is as follows: 1. Define maxrhs(G) to be the maximum length of the

All that distinguishes the de?nition of the class of Regular languages from that of the class of Star-Free languages is that the former is closed under Kleene closure while the lat

conversion from nfa to dfa 0 | 1 ___________________ p |{q,s}|{q} *q|{r} |{q,r} r |(s) |{p} *s|null |{p}