Why is this basic language not a regular language? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InBinary regular language?Is the language that accepts strings concatenated with their reverse regular?Definition of a regular languageRegular language concatenation with supersetGenerators of families of langauges?Can the definition of regular languages be simplified?Prove language is regularProve a language is regular - Regular language of 0's and 1'sDoes this proof work for infinite regular languagesProving that language is regular or not
Scaling a graph of a circle and the standard parabola in TikZ
Why isn't the circumferential light around the M87 black hole's event horizon symmetric?
I see my dog run
What are the motivations for publishing new editions of an existing textbook, beyond new discoveries in a field?
How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect
Worn-tile Scrabble
Why isn't airport relocation done gradually?
What is the accessibility of a package's `Private` context variables?
If I score a critical hit on an 18 or higher, what are my chances of getting a critical hit if I roll 3d20?
Are there incongruent pythagorean triangles with the same perimeter and same area?
Can a rogue use sneak attack with weapons that have the thrown property even if they are not thrown?
Earliest use of the term "Galois extension"?
What do the Banks children have against barley water?
Multiply Two Integer Polynomials
Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed
Is a "Democratic" Oligarchy-Style System Possible?
What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?
How can I autofill dates in Excel excluding Sunday?
What does "fetching by region is not available for SAM files" means?
Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?
Identify boardgame from Big movie
Is flight data recorder erased after every flight?
One word riddle: Vowel in the middle
Do these rules for Critical Successes and Critical Failures seem Fair?
Why is this basic language not a regular language?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InBinary regular language?Is the language that accepts strings concatenated with their reverse regular?Definition of a regular languageRegular language concatenation with supersetGenerators of families of langauges?Can the definition of regular languages be simplified?Prove language is regularProve a language is regular - Regular language of 0's and 1'sDoes this proof work for infinite regular languagesProving that language is regular or not
$begingroup$
L = x has an equal number of 0s & 1s
Based on the recursive definition of regular languages, isn't it possible to form a single regular language set over the binary alphabet 0,1 by doing the following?
- concatenating 0's and 1's to form each of the binary strings satisfying the condition, resulting in a regular language consisting of that single string
- union all the single-string regular languages together into one single regular language
regular-languages
asked Apr 6 at 10:45
ShukieShukie
61
New contributor
Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
L = x has an equal number of 0s & 1s
Based on the recursive definition of regular languages, isn't it possible to form a single regular language set over the binary alphabet 0,1 by doing the following?
- concatenating 0's and 1's to form each of the binary strings satisfying the condition, resulting in a regular language consisting of that single string
- union all the single-string regular languages together into one single regular language
regular-languages
asked Apr 6 at 10:45
ShukieShukie
61
New contributor
Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There must be something wrong with your proof attempt, since it would apply to any language and there are surely some non-regular languages. The answers explain what.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Apr 6 at 19:47
add a comment |
$begingroup$
L = x has an equal number of 0s & 1s
Based on the recursive definition of regular languages, isn't it possible to form a single regular language set over the binary alphabet 0,1 by doing the following?
- concatenating 0's and 1's to form each of the binary strings satisfying the condition, resulting in a regular language consisting of that single string
- union all the single-string regular languages together into one single regular language
regular-languages
asked Apr 6 at 10:45
ShukieShukie
61
New contributor
Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
L = x has an equal number of 0s & 1s
Based on the recursive definition of regular languages, isn't it possible to form a single regular language set over the binary alphabet 0,1 by doing the following?
- concatenating 0's and 1's to form each of the binary strings satisfying the condition, resulting in a regular language consisting of that single string
- union all the single-string regular languages together into one single regular language
regular-languages
regular-languages
asked Apr 6 at 10:45
ShukieShukie
61
New contributor
Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Apr 6 at 10:45
ShukieShukie
61
New contributor
Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Apr 6 at 10:45
ShukieShukie
61
New contributor
Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Apr 6 at 10:45
ShukieShukie
61
asked Apr 6 at 10:45
ShukieShukie
61
61
New contributor
Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
There must be something wrong with your proof attempt, since it would apply to any language and there are surely some non-regular languages. The answers explain what.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Apr 6 at 19:47
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There must be something wrong with your proof attempt, since it would apply to any language and there are surely some non-regular languages. The answers explain what.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Apr 6 at 19:47
$begingroup$
There must be something wrong with your proof attempt, since it would apply to any language and there are surely some non-regular languages. The answers explain what.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Apr 6 at 19:47
$begingroup$
There must be something wrong with your proof attempt, since it would apply to any language and there are surely some non-regular languages. The answers explain what.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Apr 6 at 19:47
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Every language is the union of regular languages:
$$
L = bigcup_x in L x .
$$
However, the set of regular languages is not closed under infinite unions. It isn't even closed under countably infinite unions, as your example demonstrates.
You can prove that your language is not regular in many ways. For example, if your language were regular, then so would its intersection with $0^*1^*$ be; yet this language is $ 0^n 1^n : n geq 0 $, the classical example of a non-regular language. You can also prove non-regularity of your language directly, using either the pumping lemma or Myhill–Nerode theory.
answered Apr 6 at 12:00
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
196k15185349
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're on the right track! There's just one thing you're missing.
The "build all the strings and union them together" approach works great—if you have a finite number of strings. There's a theorem that says "a union of finitely many regular languages is regular", but the key is the finitely many.
In this case, there are infinitely many strings in the language, so the union-them-all trick no longer works.
If you want to prove that the language is not regular (as opposed to just failing to prove that it is regular), try a fooling set proof:
- Let $F$ be the language $1^*$. It's clearly infinite.
- Let $x$ and $y$ be two distinct strings in $F$. These can be written as $1^i$ and $1^j$ with $i neq j$.
- Now, let $z$ be $0^i$. From the definition of your language, we can see that $xz$ is in the language, but $yz$ is not.
- Therefore, all the different strings in $F$ are distinguishable as prefixes. Since the language has infinitely many distinguishable prefixes, it cannot be regular.
answered Apr 6 at 16:17
DraconisDraconis
5,762921
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much! That finite part wasn't mentioned in my lecture notes unfortunately.
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:56
$begingroup$
@Shukie It's an unfortunate fact that many lecturers gloss over the "fine print" in the proofs. Often that works just fine, and then you run into one of the cases like this where the fine print matters! (In other words, it's a good question to ask!)
$endgroup$
– Draconis
Apr 7 at 16:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After you process n zeroes, the set of following strings leading to an accept state are all those with n 1’s more than 0’s. All these sets are different. And each set is roughly the same as a state in a state machine - so you can’t have a state machine with finite number of states.
answered Apr 7 at 11:22
gnasher729gnasher729
11.8k1218
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "419"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Shukie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106556%2fwhy-is-this-basic-language-not-a-regular-language%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Every language is the union of regular languages:
$$
L = bigcup_x in L x .
$$
However, the set of regular languages is not closed under infinite unions. It isn't even closed under countably infinite unions, as your example demonstrates.
You can prove that your language is not regular in many ways. For example, if your language were regular, then so would its intersection with $0^*1^*$ be; yet this language is $ 0^n 1^n : n geq 0 $, the classical example of a non-regular language. You can also prove non-regularity of your language directly, using either the pumping lemma or Myhill–Nerode theory.
answered Apr 6 at 12:00
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
196k15185349
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Every language is the union of regular languages:
$$
L = bigcup_x in L x .
$$
However, the set of regular languages is not closed under infinite unions. It isn't even closed under countably infinite unions, as your example demonstrates.
You can prove that your language is not regular in many ways. For example, if your language were regular, then so would its intersection with $0^*1^*$ be; yet this language is $ 0^n 1^n : n geq 0 $, the classical example of a non-regular language. You can also prove non-regularity of your language directly, using either the pumping lemma or Myhill–Nerode theory.
answered Apr 6 at 12:00
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
196k15185349
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Every language is the union of regular languages:
$$
L = bigcup_x in L x .
$$
However, the set of regular languages is not closed under infinite unions. It isn't even closed under countably infinite unions, as your example demonstrates.
You can prove that your language is not regular in many ways. For example, if your language were regular, then so would its intersection with $0^*1^*$ be; yet this language is $ 0^n 1^n : n geq 0 $, the classical example of a non-regular language. You can also prove non-regularity of your language directly, using either the pumping lemma or Myhill–Nerode theory.
answered Apr 6 at 12:00
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
196k15185349
$endgroup$
Every language is the union of regular languages:
$$
L = bigcup_x in L x .
$$
However, the set of regular languages is not closed under infinite unions. It isn't even closed under countably infinite unions, as your example demonstrates.
You can prove that your language is not regular in many ways. For example, if your language were regular, then so would its intersection with $0^*1^*$ be; yet this language is $ 0^n 1^n : n geq 0 $, the classical example of a non-regular language. You can also prove non-regularity of your language directly, using either the pumping lemma or Myhill–Nerode theory.
answered Apr 6 at 12:00
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
196k15185349
answered Apr 6 at 12:00
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
196k15185349
answered Apr 6 at 12:00
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
196k15185349
answered Apr 6 at 12:00
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
196k15185349
196k15185349
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:55
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:55
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're on the right track! There's just one thing you're missing.
The "build all the strings and union them together" approach works great—if you have a finite number of strings. There's a theorem that says "a union of finitely many regular languages is regular", but the key is the finitely many.
In this case, there are infinitely many strings in the language, so the union-them-all trick no longer works.
If you want to prove that the language is not regular (as opposed to just failing to prove that it is regular), try a fooling set proof:
- Let $F$ be the language $1^*$. It's clearly infinite.
- Let $x$ and $y$ be two distinct strings in $F$. These can be written as $1^i$ and $1^j$ with $i neq j$.
- Now, let $z$ be $0^i$. From the definition of your language, we can see that $xz$ is in the language, but $yz$ is not.
- Therefore, all the different strings in $F$ are distinguishable as prefixes. Since the language has infinitely many distinguishable prefixes, it cannot be regular.
answered Apr 6 at 16:17
DraconisDraconis
5,762921
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much! That finite part wasn't mentioned in my lecture notes unfortunately.
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:56
$begingroup$
@Shukie It's an unfortunate fact that many lecturers gloss over the "fine print" in the proofs. Often that works just fine, and then you run into one of the cases like this where the fine print matters! (In other words, it's a good question to ask!)
$endgroup$
– Draconis
Apr 7 at 16:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're on the right track! There's just one thing you're missing.
The "build all the strings and union them together" approach works great—if you have a finite number of strings. There's a theorem that says "a union of finitely many regular languages is regular", but the key is the finitely many.
In this case, there are infinitely many strings in the language, so the union-them-all trick no longer works.
If you want to prove that the language is not regular (as opposed to just failing to prove that it is regular), try a fooling set proof:
- Let $F$ be the language $1^*$. It's clearly infinite.
- Let $x$ and $y$ be two distinct strings in $F$. These can be written as $1^i$ and $1^j$ with $i neq j$.
- Now, let $z$ be $0^i$. From the definition of your language, we can see that $xz$ is in the language, but $yz$ is not.
- Therefore, all the different strings in $F$ are distinguishable as prefixes. Since the language has infinitely many distinguishable prefixes, it cannot be regular.
answered Apr 6 at 16:17
DraconisDraconis
5,762921
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much! That finite part wasn't mentioned in my lecture notes unfortunately.
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:56
$begingroup$
@Shukie It's an unfortunate fact that many lecturers gloss over the "fine print" in the proofs. Often that works just fine, and then you run into one of the cases like this where the fine print matters! (In other words, it's a good question to ask!)
$endgroup$
– Draconis
Apr 7 at 16:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're on the right track! There's just one thing you're missing.
The "build all the strings and union them together" approach works great—if you have a finite number of strings. There's a theorem that says "a union of finitely many regular languages is regular", but the key is the finitely many.
In this case, there are infinitely many strings in the language, so the union-them-all trick no longer works.
If you want to prove that the language is not regular (as opposed to just failing to prove that it is regular), try a fooling set proof:
- Let $F$ be the language $1^*$. It's clearly infinite.
- Let $x$ and $y$ be two distinct strings in $F$. These can be written as $1^i$ and $1^j$ with $i neq j$.
- Now, let $z$ be $0^i$. From the definition of your language, we can see that $xz$ is in the language, but $yz$ is not.
- Therefore, all the different strings in $F$ are distinguishable as prefixes. Since the language has infinitely many distinguishable prefixes, it cannot be regular.
answered Apr 6 at 16:17
DraconisDraconis
5,762921
$endgroup$
You're on the right track! There's just one thing you're missing.
The "build all the strings and union them together" approach works great—if you have a finite number of strings. There's a theorem that says "a union of finitely many regular languages is regular", but the key is the finitely many.
In this case, there are infinitely many strings in the language, so the union-them-all trick no longer works.
If you want to prove that the language is not regular (as opposed to just failing to prove that it is regular), try a fooling set proof:
- Let $F$ be the language $1^*$. It's clearly infinite.
- Let $x$ and $y$ be two distinct strings in $F$. These can be written as $1^i$ and $1^j$ with $i neq j$.
- Now, let $z$ be $0^i$. From the definition of your language, we can see that $xz$ is in the language, but $yz$ is not.
- Therefore, all the different strings in $F$ are distinguishable as prefixes. Since the language has infinitely many distinguishable prefixes, it cannot be regular.
answered Apr 6 at 16:17
DraconisDraconis
5,762921
answered Apr 6 at 16:17
DraconisDraconis
5,762921
answered Apr 6 at 16:17
DraconisDraconis
5,762921
answered Apr 6 at 16:17
DraconisDraconis
5,762921
5,762921
$begingroup$
Thank you very much! That finite part wasn't mentioned in my lecture notes unfortunately.
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:56
$begingroup$
@Shukie It's an unfortunate fact that many lecturers gloss over the "fine print" in the proofs. Often that works just fine, and then you run into one of the cases like this where the fine print matters! (In other words, it's a good question to ask!)
$endgroup$
– Draconis
Apr 7 at 16:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you very much! That finite part wasn't mentioned in my lecture notes unfortunately.
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:56
$begingroup$
@Shukie It's an unfortunate fact that many lecturers gloss over the "fine print" in the proofs. Often that works just fine, and then you run into one of the cases like this where the fine print matters! (In other words, it's a good question to ask!)
$endgroup$
– Draconis
Apr 7 at 16:11
$begingroup$
Thank you very much! That finite part wasn't mentioned in my lecture notes unfortunately.
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:56
$begingroup$
Thank you very much! That finite part wasn't mentioned in my lecture notes unfortunately.
$endgroup$
– Shukie
Apr 7 at 8:56
$begingroup$
@Shukie It's an unfortunate fact that many lecturers gloss over the "fine print" in the proofs. Often that works just fine, and then you run into one of the cases like this where the fine print matters! (In other words, it's a good question to ask!)
$endgroup$
– Draconis
Apr 7 at 16:11
$begingroup$
@Shukie It's an unfortunate fact that many lecturers gloss over the "fine print" in the proofs. Often that works just fine, and then you run into one of the cases like this where the fine print matters! (In other words, it's a good question to ask!)
$endgroup$
– Draconis
Apr 7 at 16:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After you process n zeroes, the set of following strings leading to an accept state are all those with n 1’s more than 0’s. All these sets are different. And each set is roughly the same as a state in a state machine - so you can’t have a state machine with finite number of states.
answered Apr 7 at 11:22
gnasher729gnasher729
11.8k1218
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After you process n zeroes, the set of following strings leading to an accept state are all those with n 1’s more than 0’s. All these sets are different. And each set is roughly the same as a state in a state machine - so you can’t have a state machine with finite number of states.
answered Apr 7 at 11:22
gnasher729gnasher729
11.8k1218
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After you process n zeroes, the set of following strings leading to an accept state are all those with n 1’s more than 0’s. All these sets are different. And each set is roughly the same as a state in a state machine - so you can’t have a state machine with finite number of states.
answered Apr 7 at 11:22
gnasher729gnasher729
11.8k1218
$endgroup$
After you process n zeroes, the set of following strings leading to an accept state are all those with n 1’s more than 0’s. All these sets are different. And each set is roughly the same as a state in a state machine - so you can’t have a state machine with finite number of states.
answered Apr 7 at 11:22
gnasher729gnasher729
11.8k1218
answered Apr 7 at 11:22
gnasher729gnasher729
11.8k1218
answered Apr 7 at 11:22
gnasher729gnasher729
11.8k1218
answered Apr 7 at 11:22
gnasher729gnasher729
11.8k1218
11.8k1218
add a comment |
add a comment |
Shukie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Shukie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Shukie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Shukie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Computer Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106556%2fwhy-is-this-basic-language-not-a-regular-language%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
There must be something wrong with your proof attempt, since it would apply to any language and there are surely some non-regular languages. The answers explain what.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Apr 6 at 19:47