Advertisement

On the Difference Between Finite-State and Pushdown Depth

  • Liam JordonEmail author
  • Philippe MoserEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12011)

Abstract

This paper expands upon existing and introduces new formulations of Bennett’s logical depth. A new notion based on pushdown compressors is developed. A pushdown deep sequence is constructed. The separation of (previously published) finite-state based and pushdown based depth is shown. The previously published finite state depth notion is extended to an almost everywhere (a.e.) version. An a.e. finite-state deep sequence is shown to exist along with a sequence that is infinitely often (i.o.) but not a.e. finite-state deep. For both finite-state and pushdown, easy and random sequences with respect to each notion are shown to be non-deep, and that a slow growth law holds for pushdown depth.

Keywords

Algorithmic information theory Kolmogorov complexity Bennett’s logical depth 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their useful comments, specifically to explore how the chosen binary representations of FSTs affects FS-depth.

References

  1. 1.
    Antunes, L., Fortnow, L., van Melkebeek, D., Vinodchandran, N.: Computational depth: concept and applications. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 354, 391–404 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett, C.H.: Logical depth and physical complexity. In: Bennett, C. (ed.) The Universal Turing Machine, A Half-Century Survey, pp. 227–257. Oxford University Press, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calude, C.S., Salomaa, K., Roblot, T.K.: Finite state complexity. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 412(41), 5668–5677 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calude, C.S., Staiger, L., Stephan, F.: Finite state incompressible infinite sequences. Inf. Comput. 247, 23–36 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dai, J., Lathrop, J., Lutz, J., Mayordomo, E.: Finite-state dimension. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 310, 1–33 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doty, D., Moser, P.: Feasible depth. In: Cooper, S.B., Löwe, B., Sorbi, A. (eds.) CiE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4497, pp. 228–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73001-9_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huffman, D.A.: Canonical forms for information-lossless finite-state logical machines. IRE Trans. Circ. Theory CT-6 (Special Supplement) 5(5), 41–59 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kohavi, Z.: Switching and Finite Automata Theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mayordomo, E., Moser, P., Perifel, S.: Polylog space compression, pushdown compression, and Lempel-Ziv are incomparable. Theory Comput. Syst. 48(4), 731–766 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moser, P.: Polynomial depth, highness and lowness for E. Inf. Comput. (2019, accepted) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moser, P.: On the polynomial depth of various sets of random strings. Theor. Comput. Sci. 477, 96–108 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moser, P., Stephan, F.: Depth, highness and DNR degrees. Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci. 19(4) (2017) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentNational University of Ireland MaynoothMaynoothIreland

Personalised recommendations