Already have an account? Get multiple benefits of using own account!
Login in your account..!
Remember me
Don't have an account? Create your account in less than a minutes,
Forgot password? how can I recover my password now!
Enter right registered email to receive password!
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 each instance of the Positiveness Problem is a regular language. (Each instance itself is, not the set of solved instances.) Clearly, we cannot take the set of strings in the language to be our instance, (since, in general, this is likely to be in?nite in size. But we have at least two means of specifying any regular language using ?nite objects: we can give a Finite State Automaton that recognizes the language as a ?ve-tuple, each component of which is ?nite, (or, equivalently, the transition graph in some other form) or we can give a regular expression. Since we have algorithms for converting back and forth between these two forms, we can choose whichever is convenient for us. In this case, lets assume we are given the ?ve-tuple. Since we have an algorithm for converting NFAs to DFAs as well, we can also assume, without loss of generality, that the automaton is a DFA.
A solution to the Positiveness Problem is just "True" or "False". It is a decision problem a problem of deciding whether the given instance exhibits a particular property. (We are familiar with this sort of problem. They are just our "checking problems"-all our automata are models of algorithms for decision problems.) So the Positiveness Problem, then, is just the problem of identifying the set of Finite State Automata that do not accept the empty string. Note that we are not asking if this set is regular, although we could. (What do you think the answer would be?) We are asking if there is any algorithm at all for solving it.
State and Prove the Arden's theorem for Regular Expression
Normal forms are important because they give us a 'standard' way of rewriting and allow us to compare two apparently different grammars G1 and G2. The two grammars can be shown to
We will specify a computation of one of these automata by specifying the pair of the symbols that are in the window and the remainder of the string to the right of the window at ea
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 research method project and i meef to make prposal with topic. If this service here please help me
The initial ID of the automaton given in Figure 3, running on input ‘aabbba' is (A, aabbba) The ID after the ?rst three transitions of the computation is (F, bba) The p
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
Give the Myhill graph of your automaton. (You may use a single node to represent the entire set of symbols of the English alphabet, another to represent the entire set of decima
The fact that SL 2 is closed under intersection but not under union implies that it is not closed under complement since, by DeMorgan's Theorem L 1 ∩ L 2 = We know that
Get guaranteed satisfaction & time on delivery in every assignment order you paid with us! We ensure premium quality solution document along with free turntin report!
whatsapp: +91-977-207-8620
Phone: +91-977-207-8620
Email: [email protected]
All rights reserved! Copyrights ©2019-2020 ExpertsMind IT Educational Pvt Ltd