Regular Language - Deciding Whether A Language Is Regular

Deciding Whether A Language Is Regular

To locate the regular languages in the Chomsky hierarchy, one notices that every regular language is context-free. The converse is not true: for example the language consisting of all strings having the same number of a's as b's is context-free but not regular. To prove that a language such as this is regular, one often uses the Myhill–Nerode theorem or the pumping lemma among other methods.

There are two purely algebraic approaches to define regular languages. If:

  • Σ is a finite alphabet,
  • Σ* denotes the free monoid over Σ consisting of all strings over Σ,
  • f : Σ* → M is a monoid homomorphism where M is a finite monoid,
  • S is a subset of M

then the set is regular. Every regular language arises in this fashion.

If L is any subset of Σ*, one defines an equivalence relation ~ (called the syntactic relation) on Σ* as follows: u ~ v is defined to mean

uwL if and only if vwL for all w ∈ Σ*

The language L is regular if and only if the number of equivalence classes of ~ is finite (A proof of this is provided in the article on the syntactic monoid). When a language is regular, then the number of equivalence classes is equal to the number of states of the minimal deterministic finite automaton accepting L.

A similar set of statements can be formulated for a monoid . In this case, equivalence over M leads to the concept of a recognizable language.

Read more about this topic:  Regular Language

Famous quotes containing the words deciding, language and/or regular:

    Once again, we’ve wasted time and money by dealing with the homeless backward. Too much energy has gone into deciding where we do not want them to be, and making sure that they would not be there.
    Anna Quindlen (b. 1952)

    UG [universal grammar] may be regarded as a characterization of the genetically determined language faculty. One may think of this faculty as a ‘language acquisition device,’ an innate component of the human mind that yields a particular language through interaction with present experience, a device that converts experience into a system of knowledge attained: knowledge of one or another language.
    Noam Chomsky (b. 1928)

    “I couldn’t afford to learn it,” said the Mock Turtle with a sigh. “I only took the regular course.”
    “What was that?” inquired Alice.
    “Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with,” the Mock Turtle replied; “and then the different branches of Arithmetic—Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.”
    “I never heard of ‘Uglification,’” Alice ventured to say.
    Lewis Carroll [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson] (1832–1898)