Green’s Relations in Finite Transformation Semigroups

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10304)

Abstract

We consider the complexity of Green’s relations when the semigroup is given by transformations on a finite set. Green’s relations can be defined by reachability in the (right/left/two-sided) Cayley graph. The equivalence classes then correspond to the strongly connected components. It is not difficult to show that, in the worst case, the number of equivalence classes is in the same order of magnitude as the number of elements. Another important parameter is the maximal length of a chain of components. Our main contribution is an exponential lower bound for this parameter. There is a simple construction for an arbitrary set of generators. However, the proof for constant alphabet is rather involved. Our results also apply to automata and their syntactic semigroups.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous referees for several useful suggestions which helped to improve the presentation of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Brandl, C., Simon, H.U.: Complexity analysis: transformation monoids of finite automata. In: Potapov, I. (ed.) DLT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9168, pp. 143–154. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21500-6_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carton, O., Michel, M.: Unambiguous Büchi automata. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 297(1), 37–81 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eilenberg, S.: Automata, Languages, and Machines, vol. B. Academic Press, New York (1976)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feller, W.: An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, vol. 1. New York, Wiley (1957)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleischer, L., Kufleitner, M.: Green’s Relations in Finite Transformation Semigroups. CoRR, abs/1703.04941 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ganardi, M., Hucke, D., Lohrey, M.: Querying regular languages over sliding windows. In: FSTTCS 2016, Proceedings, vol. 65. LIPIcs, pp. 18:1–18:14. Dagstuhl Publishing (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holzer, M., König, B.: On deterministic finite automata and syntactic monoid size. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 327(3), 319–347 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pin, J.É.: Varieties of Formal Languages. North Oxford Academic, London (1986)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Robbins, H.: A remark on Stirling’s formula. Am. Math. Monthly 62, 26–28 (1955)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FMI, University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations