Why is this basic language not a regular language?
$begingroup$
L = {x in {0,1}* | 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 in {0,1}* | 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 in {0,1}* | 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 in {0,1}* | 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
196k15184349
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@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
2 days ago
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 2 days ago
gnasher729gnasher729
11.6k1217
$endgroup$
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
196k15184349
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
2 days ago
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
196k15184349
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
2 days ago
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
196k15184349
$endgroup$
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
196k15184349
answered Apr 6 at 12:00
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
196k15184349
answered Apr 6 at 12:00
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
196k15184349
answered Apr 6 at 12:00
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
196k15184349
196k15184349
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thank you very much!
$endgroup$
– Shukie
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@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
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@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
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@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
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you very much! That finite part wasn't mentioned in my lecture notes unfortunately.
$endgroup$
– Shukie
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thank you very much! That finite part wasn't mentioned in my lecture notes unfortunately.
$endgroup$
– Shukie
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thank you very much! That finite part wasn't mentioned in my lecture notes unfortunately.
$endgroup$
– Shukie
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@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
2 days ago
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 2 days ago
gnasher729gnasher729
11.6k1217
$endgroup$
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 2 days ago
gnasher729gnasher729
11.6k1217
$endgroup$
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 2 days ago
gnasher729gnasher729
11.6k1217
$endgroup$
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 2 days ago
gnasher729gnasher729
11.6k1217
answered 2 days ago
gnasher729gnasher729
11.6k1217
answered 2 days ago
gnasher729gnasher729
11.6k1217
answered 2 days ago
gnasher729gnasher729
11.6k1217
11.6k1217
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