On Bounded Semilinear Languages, Counter Machines, and Finite-Index ET0L

  • Oscar H. Ibarra
  • Ian McQuillanEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9705)


We show that for every trio \(\mathcal{L}\) containing only semilinear languages, all bounded languages in \(\mathcal{L}\) can be accepted by one-way nondeterministic reversal-bounded multicounter machines (\(\textsf {NCM}\)), and in fact, even by the deterministic versions of these machines \((\textsf {DCM})\). This implies that for every semilinear trio (where these properties are effective), it is possible to decide containment, equivalence, and disjointness concerning its bounded languages. We also provide a relatively simple condition for when the bounded languages in a semilinear trio coincide exactly with those accepted by \(\textsf {DCM}\) machines. This is applied to finite-index \(\textsf {ET0L}\) systems, where we show that the bounded languages generated by these systems are exactly the bounded languages accepted by \(\textsf {DCM}\). We also define, compare, and characterize several other types of languages that are both bounded and semilinear.


  1. 1.
    Baker, B.S., Book, R.V.: Reversal-bounded multipushdown machines. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 8(3), 315–332 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breveglieri, L., Cherubini, A., Citrini, C., Reghizzi, S.: Multi-push-down languages and grammars. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 7(3), 253–291 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duske, J., Parchmann, R.: Linear indexed languages. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 32(1–2), 47–60 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ginsburg, S.: Algebraic and Automata-Theoretic Properties of Formal Languages. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1975)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ginsburg, S.: The Mathematical Theory of Context-Free Languages. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York (1966)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greibach, S.: Remarks on blind and partially blind one-way multicounter machines. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 7, 311–324 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harju, T., Ibarra, O., Karhumäki, J., Salomaa, A.: Some decision problems concerning semilinearity and commutation. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 65(2), 278–294 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harrison, M.: Introduction to Formal Language Theory. Addison-Wesley Series in Computer Science. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Boston (1978)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibarra, O., McQuillan, I.: The effect of end-markers on counter machines and commutativity. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 627, 71–81 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibarra, O.H.: Reversal-bounded multicounter machines and their decision problems. J. ACM 25(1), 116–133 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibarra, O.H., Seki, S.: Characterizations of bounded semilinear languages by one-way and two-way deterministic machines. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 23(6), 1291–1306 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rozenberg, G., Vermeir, D.: On ET0L systems of finite index. Inf. Control 38, 103–133 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rozenberg, G., Vermeir, D.: On the effect of the finite index restriction on several families of grammars. Inf. Control 39, 284–302 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rozoy, B.: The Dyck language \(D_1^{\prime *}\) is not generated by any matrix grammar of finite index. Inf. Comput. 74(1), 64–89 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations