Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flip-Pushdown Automata: k + 1 Pushdown Reversals Are Better than k

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP 2003)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2719))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Flip-pushdown automata are pushdown automata with the additional power to flip or reverse its pushdown, and were recently introduced by Sarkar [13]. We solve most of Sarkar’s open problems. In particular, we show that k+1 pushdown reversals are better than k for both deterministic and nondeterministic flip-pushdown automata, i.e., there are languages which can be recognized by a deterministic flip-pushdown automaton with k+1 pushdown reversals but which cannot be recognized by a k-flip-pushdown (deterministic or nondeterministic). Furthermore, we investigate closure and non-closure properties as well as computational complexity problems such as fixed and general membership.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ch. Bader and A. Moura. A generalization of Ogden’s lemma. Journal of the ACM, 29(2):404–407, 1982.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. J. L. Balcázar, J. Díaz, and J. Gabarró. Structural Complexity I, volume 11 of EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Berstel. Transductions and Context-Free Languages, volume 38 of Leitfäden der angewandten Mathematik und Mechanik LAMM. Teubner, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  4. N. Chomsky. Handbook of Mathematic Psychology, volume 2, chapter Formal Properties of Grammars, pages 323–418. Wiley & Sons, New York, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. A. Cook. Characterizations of pushdown machines in terms of time-bounded computers. Journal of the ACM, 18(1):4–18, January 1971.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. R. J. Evey. The Theory and Applications of Pushdown Store Machines. Ph.D thesis, Harvard University, Massachusetts, May 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  7. S. Ginsburg. Algebraic and Automata-Theoretic Properties of Formal Languages. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. S. Ginsburg, S. A. Greibach, and M. A. Harrison. One-way stack automata. Journal of the ACM, 14(2):389–418, April 1967.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. S. Ginsburg and E. H. Spanier. Finite-turn pushdown automata. SIAM Journal on Computing, 4(3):429–453, 1966.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. J. E. Hopcroft and J. D. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation. Addison-Wesley, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  11. N. D. Jones and W. T. Laaser. Complete problems for deterministic polynomial time. Theoretical Computer Science, 3:105–117, 1977.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. G. Rozenberg and A. Salomaa. The Mathematical Theory of L Systems, volume 90 of Pure and Applied Mathematics. Academic Press, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  13. P. Sarkar. Pushdown automaton with the ability to flip its stack. Report TR01-081, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), November 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  14. I. H. Sudborough. On the tape complexity of deterministic context-free languages. Journal of the ACM, 25(3):405–414, July 1978.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748, Garching bei München, Germany

    Markus Holzer

  2. Institut für Informatik, Universität Gießen, Arndtstraße 2, D-35392, Gießen, Germany

    Martin Kutrib

Authors
  1. Markus Holzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Kutrib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Jos C. M. Baeten

  2. School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 765 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0205, USA

    Jan Karel Lenstra

  3. Department of Information Technology, Uppsala University, P.O. Box 337, 75105, Uppsala, Sweden

    Joachim Parrow

  4. Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Gerhard J. Woeginger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Holzer, M., Kutrib, M. (2003). Flip-Pushdown Automata: k + 1 Pushdown Reversals Are Better than k . In: Baeten, J.C.M., Lenstra, J.K., Parrow, J., Woeginger, G.J. (eds) Automata, Languages and Programming. ICALP 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2719. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45061-0_40

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45061-0_40

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-40493-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45061-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation