Deletion Operations on Deterministic Families of Automata

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9076)

Abstract

Many different deletion operations are investigated applied to languages accepted by one-way and two-way deterministic reversal-bounded multicounter machines as well as finite automata. Operations studied include the prefix, suffix, infix and outfix operations, as well as left and right quotient with languages from different families. It is often expected that language families defined from deterministic machines will not be closed under deletion operations. However, here, it is shown that one-way deterministic reversal-bounded multicounter languages are closed under right quotient with languages from many different language families; even those defined by nondeterministic machines such as the context-free languages, or languages accepted by nondeterministic pushdown machines augmented by any number of reversal-bounded counters. Also, it is shown that when starting with one-way deterministic machines with one counter that makes only one reversal, taking the left quotient with languages from many different language families, again including those defined by nondeterministic machines such as the context-free languages, yields only one-way deterministic reversal-bounded multicounter languages (by increasing the number of counters). However, if there are even just two more reversals on the counter, or a second 1-reversal-bounded counter, taking the left quotient (or even just the suffix operation) yields languages that can neither be accepted by deterministic reversal-bounded multicounter machines, nor by 2-way nondeterministic machines with one reversal-bounded counter. A number of other results with deletion operations are also shown.

References

  1. 1.
    Aho, A.V.: Indexed grammars–an extension of context-free grammars. J. ACM 15(4), 647–671 (1968)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, B.S., Book, R.V.: Reversal-bounded multipushdown machines. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 8(3), 315–332 (1974)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chiniforooshan, E., Daley, M., Ibarra, O.H., Kari, L., Seki, S.: One-reversal counter machines and multihead automata: Revisited. Theor. Comput. Sci. 454, 81–87 (2012)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eremondi, J., Ibarra, O., McQuillan, I.: Deletion operations on deterministic families of automata. Technical report 2014–03, University of Saskatchewan (2014). http://www.cs.usask.ca/documents/techreports/2014/TR-2014-03.pdf
  5. 5.
    Eremondi, J., Ibarra, O.H., McQuillan, I.: Insertion operations on deterministic reversal-bounded counter machines. In: Dediu, A.-H., Formenti, E., Martín-Vide, C., Truthe, B. (eds.) LATA 2015. LNCS, vol. 8977, pp. 200–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2015) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gurari, E.M., Ibarra, O.H.: The complexity of decision problems for finite-turn multicounter machines. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 22(2), 220–229 (1981)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle 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)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harrison, M.: Introduction to Formal Language Theory. Addison-Wesley Series in Computer Science. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Boston (1978)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibarra, O.H.: Reversal-bounded multicounter machines and their decision problems. J. ACM 25(1), 116–133 (1978)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibarra, O.H., Jiang, T., Tran, N., Wang, H.: New decidability results concerning two-way counter machines. SIAM J. Comput. 23(1), 123–137 (1995)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jürgensen, H., Kari, L., Thierrin, G.: Morphisms preserving densities. Int. J. Comput. Math. 78, 165–189 (2001)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kari, L., Seki, S.: Schema for parallel insertion and deletion: Revisited. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 22(07), 1655–1668 (2011)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Minsky, M.L.: Recursive unsolvability of post’s problem of “tag” and other topics in theory of turing machines. Ann. Math. 74(3), 437–455 (1961)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rozenberg, G., Salomaa, A.: The Mathematical Theory of L Systems. Academic Press Inc, New York (1980)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vijayashanker, K.: A Study of Tree Adjoining Grammars. Ph.D. thesis, Philadelphia, PA, USA (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joey Eremondi
    • 1
  • Oscar H. Ibarra
    • 2
  • Ian McQuillan
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations