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
DEGENERATE OF THE INITIAL SOLUTION

De?nition Instantaneous Description of an FSA: An instantaneous description (ID) of a FSA A = (Q,Σ, T, q 0 , F) is a pair (q,w) ∈ Q×Σ* , where q the current state and w is the p


The upper string r ∈ Q+ is the sequence of states visited by the automaton as it scans the lower string w ∈ Σ*. We will refer to this string over Q as the run of A on w. The automa

Give DFA''s accepting the following languages over the alphabet {0,1}: i. The set of all strings beginning with a 1 that, when interpreted as a binary integer, is a multiple of 5.

Ask question #Minimum 100 words accepte

In general non-determinism, by introducing a degree of parallelism, may increase the accepting power of a model of computation. But if we subject NFAs to the same sort of analysis

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

The language accepted by a NFA A = (Q,Σ, δ, q 0 , F) is NFAs correspond to a kind of parallelism in the automata. We can think of the same basic model of automaton: an inpu