ω-rational Languages: High Complexity Classes vs. Borel Hierarchy

  • Enrico Formenti
  • Markus Holzer
  • Martin Kutrib
  • Julien Provillard
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8370)

Abstract

The paper investigates classes of languages of infinite words with respect to the acceptance conditions of the finite automata recognizing them. Some new natural classes are compared with the Borel hierachy. In particular, it is proved that (fin,=) is as high as \({\textsf{F}}^R_{\sigma}\) and \({\textsf{G}}^R_{\delta}\). As a side effect, it is also proved that in this last case, considering or not considering the initial state of the FA makes a substantial difference.

Keywords

ω-rational languages Borel hierarchy acceptance conditions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Büchi, J.R.: Symposium on decision problems: On a decision method in restricted second order arithmetic. In: Ernest Nagel, P.S., Tarski, A. (eds.) Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science Proceeding of the 1960 International Congress. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 44, pp. 1–11. Elsevier (1960)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cervelle, J., Dennunzio, A., Formenti, E., Provillard, J.: Acceptance conditions for ω-languages and the Borel hierarchy (2013) (submitted)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dennunzio, A., Formenti, E., Provillard, J.: Acceptance conditions for ω-languages. In: Yen, H.-C., Ibarra, O.H. (eds.) DLT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7410, pp. 320–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hartmanis, J., Stearns, R.E.: Sets of numbers defined by finite automata. American Mathematical Monthly 74, 539–542 (1967)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Landweber, L.H.: Decision problems for omega-automata. Mathematical Systems Theory 3(4), 376–384 (1969)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Litovsky, I., Staiger, L.: Finite acceptance of infinite words. Theoretical Computer Science 174(1-2), 1–21 (1997)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moriya, T., Yamasaki, H.: Accepting conditions for automata on ω-languages. Theoretical Computer Science 61, 137–147 (1988)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muller, D.E.: Infinite sequences and finite machines. In: Proceedings of the 1963 Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on Switching Circuit Theory and Logical Design, SWCT 19, pp. 3–16. IEEE Computer Society (1963)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perrin, D., Pin, J.E.: Infinite words, automata, semigroups, logic and games. In: Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 141. Elsevier (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Staiger, L.: ω-languages. In: Handbook of formal languages, vol. 3, pp. 339–387. Springer (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Staiger, L., Wagner, K.W.: Automatentheoretische und automatenfreie charakterisierungen topologischer klassen regulärer folgenmengen. Elektronische Informationsverarbeitung und Kybernetik 10(7), 379–392 (1974)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wagner, K.W.: On ω-regular sets. Information and Control 43(2), 123–177 (1979)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrico Formenti
    • 1
  • Markus Holzer
    • 2
  • Martin Kutrib
    • 2
  • Julien Provillard
    • 1
  1. 1.CNRS, I3S, UMR 7271Université Nice Sophia AntipolisSophia AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.Institut für InformatikJustus-Liebig Universität GießenGießenGermany

Personalised recommendations