Why is this basic language not a regular language?












1












$begingroup$


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?




  1. 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

  2. union all the single-string regular languages together into one single regular language






regular-languages







share|cite|improve this question







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


















1












$begingroup$


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?




  1. 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

  2. union all the single-string regular languages together into one single regular language






regular-languages







share|cite|improve this question







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
















1












1








1





$begingroup$


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?




  1. 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

  2. union all the single-string regular languages together into one single regular language






regular-languages







share|cite|improve this question







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?




  1. 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

  2. union all the single-string regular languages together into one single regular language






regular-languages




regular-languages






share|cite|improve this question







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.











share|cite|improve this question







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.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question






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




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




















  • $begingroup$
    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












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much!
    $endgroup$
    – Shukie
    2 days ago



















1












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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



















1












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














    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.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    3












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Thank you very much!
      $endgroup$
      – Shukie
      2 days ago
















    3












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Thank you very much!
      $endgroup$
      – Shukie
      2 days ago














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    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.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Apr 6 at 12:00









    Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus

    196k15184349




    196k15184349












    • $begingroup$
      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




    $begingroup$
    Thank you very much!
    $endgroup$
    – Shukie
    2 days ago











    1












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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
















    1












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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














    1












    1








    1





    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    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.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    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


















    • $begingroup$
      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











    1












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        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.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        gnasher729gnasher729

        11.6k1217




        11.6k1217






















            Shukie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            GameSpot

            Image
            body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output table.infobox caption{text-align:center} GameSpot 戰地風雲：惡名昭彰2在Gamespot的評論 网站类型 新聞 持有者 CBS 创始人 Pete Deemer Vince Broady Jon Epstein 网站 http://www.gamespot.com/ 注册 Optional (free and paid) 推出时间 1996年5月1日 [1] GameSpot （中国大陆：游戏基地），於1996年5月由Pete Deemer和Vince Broady創立，是一個提供新聞、評論、預告片、下載及其他的相關資訊的電子遊戲網站。GameSpot被一間後來被CNET收購的企業ZDNet所收購。根據Alexa，GameSpot.com是200個網路擁擠最嚴重的網站之一。 除了由GameSpot員工創作的內容，網站還允許用戶寫評論、網誌、之後在網路論壇分享。一些在CNET旗下的GameFAQs分享。 2004年， GameSpot被Spike TV的觀眾選上「電子遊戲賞節目」贏得「最傑出遊戲網站。 [2] 其他的遊戲網站還有IGN、1UP.com、GameSpy是它最大的競爭對手。2008年，根據Compete.com的統計，「gamespot.com」吸引了最少6000萬人的點擊率。 [3] GameSpot的主頁鏈結了到最近新聞、評論、預告、和一些有關遊戲機的入口：Wii、任天堂DS、電腦遊戲、Xbox 360、PSP、PlayStation 2、PlayStation 3。它還有一列「最受歡迎遊戲名單」，還有給用戶快速獲得遊戲資訊的搜尋器。GameSpot 還包括一些小範圍的遊戲機：任天堂64、GameCube、Game Boy Color、Game Boy Advance、Xbox、PlayStation、SEGA Saturn、Dreamcast、Neo Geo Pocket Color、N-Gage、手機遊戲。 目录 1 歷史 1.1 國際歷史 1.2 著名的員工 2 評論和分
            Read more

            connect to host localhost port 22: Connection refused

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 1 1 I created a Ubuntu Vagrant box and ssh'd into it. Now, created a ssh key and trying to ssh to my localhost but I get the following error. vagrant@vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64:~$ ssh -vvvv localhost OpenSSH_6.6.1, OpenSSL 1.0.1f 6 Jan 2014 debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config debug1: /etc/ssh/ssh_config line 19: Applying options for * debug2: ssh_connect: needpriv 0 debug1: Connecting to localhost [127.0.0.1] port 22. debug1: connect to address 127.0.0.1 port 22: Connection refused ssh: connect to host localhost port 22: Connection refused When I check the list of ports opened as follows: vagrant@vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64:~$ s
            Read more

            Getting a Wifi WPA2 wifi connection

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 0 I've been trying to get a simple wifi connection ! bu I have to admit I just can't get it done ! here is what I've tried: root@MYONE:/etc# clear root@MYONE:/etc# vi wpa_supplicant.conf ctrl_interface=/var/run/wpa_supplicant ctrl_interface_group=0 update_config=1 network={ ssid="Mi Engine" psk="7407352688e4" } root@MYONE:/etc# iw wlan0 link Not connected. root@MYONE:/etc# ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 74:FE:48:3A:55:AB inet addr:192.168.178.88 Bcast:192.168.178.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::76fe:48ff:fe3a:55ab%4804152/64 Scope:Link UP BRO
            Read more