Advertisement

The equivalence of dgsm replications on Q-rational languages is decidable

  • Paavo Turakainen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 317)

Abstract

The notion of a morphic replication is extended by replacing morphisms with deterministic generalized sequential machines (dgsm). As is well-known, the equivalence problem for gsm mappings is undecidable, whereas for dgsm mappings or morphic replications it is decidable. It is shown that, more generally, two dgsm replications τ1 and τ2 are equivalent on a Q-rational language L if and only if τ1(w)=τ2(w) for all w in L such that the length of w does not exceed a certain polynomial bound whose parameters are the numbers of dgsm's in τ1 and τ2, the cardinalities of their state sets, and the size n of the Q-matrix system accepting L. Accordingly, two dgsm's with k1 and k2 states, respectively, are equivalent on L if and only if they are (2nk1+2nk2−1)-equivalent on it. A corresponding result is derived for the morphic replication equivalence on linear languages.

The above results provide an algorithm being of exponential time complexity. Polynomial time bounds for the dgsm equivalence and the morphic replication equivalence on Q-rational languages are found by means of the result that the emptiness problem for Q-rational languages is decidable in polynomial time.

Finally, a modified dgsm replication is defined, and it is shown that both the original and the modified dgsm replication equivalence problems are decidable for any family of languages satisfying certain conditions. One such family consists of languages given in the form τ(L) where τ is a morphic replication and L is a Q-rational language.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. V. Aho, J. E. Hopcroft, and J. D. Ullman, “The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms,” Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. Anton and C. Rorres, “Elementary Linear Algebra with Applications,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Singapore, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. V. Book, S. A. Greibach, and C. Wrathall, Reset machines, J. Comput. System Sci. 19 (1979), 256–276.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Ginsburg and E. H. Spanier, AFL with the semilinear property, J. Comput. System Sci. 5 (1971), 365–396.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. A. Greibach, Syntactic operators on full semiAFLs, J. Comput. System Sci. 6 (1972), 30–76.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. A. Greibach, One way finite visit automata, Theor. Comput. Sci. 6 (1978), 175–221.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Horváth, J. Karhumäki, and J. Kleijn, Results concerning palindromicity, J. Inform. Process. Cybern. 23 (1987), 441–451.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. H. Ibarra, 2DST mappings on languages and related problems, Theor. Comput. Sci. 19 (1982), 219–227.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Kannan and A. Bachem, Polynomial algorithms for computing the Smith and Hermite normal forms of an integer matrix, Siam J. Comput. 8 (1979), 499–506.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Salomaa and M. Soittola, “Automata-Theoretic Aspects of Formal Power Series,” Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Turakainen, Generalized automata and stochastic languages, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 21 (1969), 303–309.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Turakainen, On some transducer equivalence problems for families of languages, Internat. J. Comput. Math. 23 (1988), 99–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paavo Turakainen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations