Advertisement

The Number of Languages with Maximum State Complexity

  • Bjørn Kjos-HanssenEmail author
  • Lei Liu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11436)

Abstract

Champarnaud and Pin (1989) found that the minimal deterministic automaton of a language \(L\subset \Sigma ^n\), where \(\Sigma =\{0,1\}\), has at most
$$ \sum _{i=0}^n \min (2^i, 2^{2^{n-i}}-1) $$
states, and for each n there exists L attaining this bound. Câmpeanu and Ho (2004) have shown more generally that the tight upper bound for \(\Sigma \) of cardinality k and for complete automata is
$$ \frac{k^r-1}{k-1} + \sum _{j=0}^{n-r}(2^{k^j}-1) + 1 $$
where \(r=\min \{m:k^m\ge 2^{k^{n-m}}-1\}\). (In these results, requiring totality of the transition function adds 1 to the state count.) Câmpeanu and Ho’s result can be viewed as concerning functions \(f:[k]^n\rightarrow [2]\) where \([k]=\{0,\dots ,k-1\}\) is a set of cardinality k. We generalize their result to arbitrary function \(f:[k]^n\rightarrow [c]\) where c is a positive integer.

Let \(O_i\) be the number of functions from \([b^{i}]\) to \([c^{b^{n-i}}]\) that are onto \([c^{b^{n-i}}-1]\). Câmpeanu and Ho stated that it is very difficult to determine the number of maximum-complexity languages. Here we show that it is equal to \(O_i\), for the least i such that \(O_i>0\).

For monotone languages a tightness result seems harder to obtain. However, we show that the following upper bound is attained for all \(n\le 10\).
$$ \sum _{i=0}^n \min (2^i, M(n-i)-1), $$
where M(k) is the kth Dedekind number.

References

  1. 1.
    Arora, S., Barak, B., Brunnermeier, M., Ge, R.: Computational complexity and information asymmetry in financial products. Commun. ACM 54(5), 101–107 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolus, S.: Power indices of simple games and vector-weighted majority games by means of binary decision diagrams. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 210(2), 258–272 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Câmpeanu, C., Ho, W.H.: The maximum state complexity for finite languages. J. Autom. Lang. Comb. 9(2–3), 189–202 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Champarnaud, J.-M., Pin, J.-E.: A maxmin problem on finite automata. Discrete Appl. Math. 23(1), 91–96 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley Series in Computer Science. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kjos-Hanssen, B.: On the complexity of automatic complexity. Theory Comput. Syst. 61(4), 1427–1439 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knuth, D.E.: The Art of Computer Programming. Combinatorial Algorithms, Part 1, vol. 4A. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kurz, S., Tautenhahn, N.: On Dedekind’s problem for complete simple games. Int. J. Game Theory 42(2), 411–437 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Linz, P.: An Introduction to Formal Language and Automata. Jones and Bartlett Publishers Inc., Burlington (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nerode, A.: Linear automaton transformations. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 9, 541–544 (1958)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shreve, S.E.: Stochastic Calculus for Finance I: The Binomial Asset Pricing Model. Springer Finance Textbooks. Springer, New York (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sloane, N.J.A.: The online encyclopedia of integer sequences (2018). Sequence A000372Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations