Computing The Star Height of Regular Languages
In contrast, the second question turned out to be much more difficult, and the question became a famous open problem in formal language theory for over two decades (Brzozowski 1980). For years, there was only little progress. The pure-group languages were the first interesting family of regular languages for which the star height problem was proved to be decidable (McNaughton 1967). But the general problem remained open for more than 25 years until it was settled by Hashiguchi, who in 1988 published an algorithm to determine the star height of any regular language. The algorithm wasn't at all practical, being of non-elementary complexity. To illustrate the immense resource consumptions of that algorithm, Lombardy and Sakarovitch (2002) give some actual numbers:
| “ |
leads to computations that are by far impossible, even for very small examples. For instance, if L is accepted by a 4 state automaton of loop complexity 3 (and with a small 10 element transition monoid), then a very low minorant of the number of languages to be tested with L for equality is: |
” |
|
—S. Lombardy and J. Sakarovitch, Star Height of Reversible Languages and Universal Automata, LATIN 2002 |
||
Notice that alone the number has 10 billion zeros when written down in decimal notation, and is already by far larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe.
A much more efficient algorithm than Hashiguchi's procedure was devised by Kirsten in 2005. This algorithm runs, for a given nondeterministic finite automaton as input, within double-exponential space. Yet the resource requirements of this algorithm still greatly exceed the margins of what is considered practically feasible.
Read more about this topic: Star Height Problem
Famous quotes containing the words star, height, regular and/or languages:
“The sun descending in the west,
The evening star does shine;
The birds are silent in their nest,
And I must seek for mine.”
—William Blake (1757–1827)
“We have not the motive to prepare ourselves for a “life-work” of teaching, of social work—we know that we would lay it down with hallelujah in the height of our success, to make a home for the right man. And all the time in the background of our consciousness rings the warning that perhaps the right man will never come. A great love is given to very few. Perhaps this make-shift time filler of a job is our life work after all.”
—Ruth Benedict (1887–1948)
“While you’re playing cards with a regular guy or having a bite to eat with him, he seems a peaceable, good-humoured and not entirely dense person. But just begin a conversation with him about something inedible, politics or science, for instance, and he ends up in a deadend or starts in on such an obtuse and base philosophy that you can only wave your hand and leave.”
—Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (1860–1904)
“Science and technology multiply around us. To an increasing extent they dictate the languages in which we speak and think. Either we use those languages, or we remain mute.”
—J.G. (James Graham)