On Families of Graphs Having a Decidable First Order Theory with Reachability

  • Thomas Colcombet
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2380)

Abstract

We consider a new class of infinite graphs defined as the smallest solution of equational systems with vertex replacement operators and unsynchronised product. We show that those graphs have an equivalent internal representation as graphs of recognizable ground term rewriting systems. Furthermore, we show that, when restricted to bounded tree-width, those graphs are isomorphic to hyperedge replacement equational graphs. Finally, we prove that on a wider family of graphs — interpretations of trees having a decidable monadic theory — the first order theory with reachability is decidable.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K. Barthelmann. When can equational simple graphs be generated by hyperedge replacement? Technical report, University of Mainz, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Blumensath and E. Grädel. Automatic Structures. In Proceedings of 15th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science LICS 2000, pages 51–62, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Caucal. On infinite transition graphs having a decidable monadic theory. In Icalp 96, volume 1099 of LNCS, pages 194–205, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Comon, M. Dauchet, R. Gilleron, F. Jacquemard, D. Lugiez, S. Tison, and M. Tommasi. Tree automata techniques and applications. Available on: http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/tata, 1997.
  5. 5.
    B. Courcelle. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, chapter Graph rewriting: an algebraic and logic approach. Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Courcelle. The monadic second order logic of graphs ix: Machines and their behaviours. In Theoretical Computer Science, volume 151, pages 125–162, 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Dauchet and S. Tison. The theory of ground rewrite systems is decidable. In Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 242–248. IEEE Computer Society Press, June 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Knapik, D. Niwinski, and P. Urzyczyn. Higher-order pushdown trees are easy. In M. Nielsen, editor, FOSSACS’2002, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Löding. Ground tree rewriting graphs of bounded tree width. In STACS O2, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Morvan. On rational graphs. In J. Tiuryn, editor, FOSSACS’2000, volume 1784 of LNCS, pages 252–266, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Muller and P. Schupp. The theory of ends, pushdown automata, and second-order logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 37:51–75, 1985.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.O. Rabin. Decidability of second-order theories and automata on infinite trees. Trans. Amer. Math. soc., 141:1–35, 1969.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Seese. The structure of models of decidable monadic theories of graphs. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 53(2):169–195, 1991.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Sénizergues. Definability in weak monadic second-order logic of some infinite graphs. In Dagstuhl seminar on Automata theory: Infinite computations, Warden, Germany, volume 28, page 16, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Thomas. Languages, automata, and logic. Handbook of Formal Language Theory, 3:389–455, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. Thomas. A short introduction to infinite automata. In W. Kuich, editor, DLT’2001, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Colcombet
    • 1
  1. 1.IrisaRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations