Fooling Rebound Automata
We separate the class of languages accepted by deterministic two-way one counter automata from the languages accepted by two-dimensional rebound automata. We also discuss the relationship of the classes to languages accepted by rebound automata with k-dimensional input for k ≥ 3. Further we answer the question whether the classes of languages accepted by deterministic or nondeterministic rebound automata are closed under length-preserving homomorphisms negatively.
KeywordsFinite Automaton Input String Input Length Deterministic Finite Automaton Input Tape
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.M. Blum and C. Hewitt. Automata on a 2-dimensional tape. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory, Austin, 1967, pages 155–160, 1967.Google Scholar
- 3.J. Hromkovič and G. Schnitger. Communication complexity and sequential computation. In I. Prívara and P. Ružička, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), Bratislava, 1997, number 1295 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 71–84, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1997. Springer.Google Scholar
- 7.K. Morita, K. Sugata, and H. Umeo. Computation complexity of n-bounded counter automaton and multidimensional rebound automaton. Systems • Computers • Controls, 8:80–87, 1977. Translated from Denshi Tsushin Gakkai Ronbunshi (IECE of Japan Trans.) 60-D:283–290, 1977 (Japanese).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 10.M. Sakamoto, K. Inoue, and I. Takanami. A two-way nondeterministic one-counter language not accepted by nondeterministic rebound automata. IECE of Japan Trans., 73-E:879–881, 1990.Google Scholar
- 12.L. Zhang, J. Xu, K. Inoue, A. Ito, and Y. Wang. Alternating rebound Turing machines. Technical Report of IEICE, COMP98-4:25–32, 1998.Google Scholar