Families of Regular Languages With Unbounded Star Height
The first question was answered in the negative when in 1963, Eggan gave examples of regular languages of star height n for every n. Here, the star height h(L) of a regular language L is defined as the minimum star height among all regular expressions representing L. The first few languages found by Eggan (1963) are described in the following, by means of giving a regular expression for each language:
The construction principle for these expressions is that expression is obtained by concatenating two copies of, appropriately renaming the letters of the second copy using fresh alphabet symbols, concatenating the result with another fresh alphabet symbol, and then by surrounding the resulting expression with a Kleene star. The remaining, more difficult part, is to prove that for there is no equivalent regular expression of star height less than n; a proof is given in (Eggan 1963).
However, Eggan's examples use a large alphabet, of size 2n-1 for the language with star height n. He thus asked whether we can also find examples over binary alphabets. This was proved to be true shortly afterwards by Dejean & Schützenberger (1966). Their examples can be described by an inductively defined family of regular expressions over the binary alphabet as follows–cf. Salomaa (1981):
Again, a rigorous proof is needed for the fact that does not admit an equivalent regular expression of lower star height. Proofs are given by (Dejean & Schützenberger 1966) and by (Salomaa 1981).
Read more about this topic: Star Height Problem
Famous quotes containing the words families of, families, regular, languages, star and/or height:
“Families have always been in flux and often in crisis; they have never lived up to nostalgic notions about “the way things used to be.” But that doesn’t mean the malaise and anxiety people feel about modern families are delusions, that everything would be fine if we would only realize that the past was not all it’s cracked up to be. . . . Even if things were not always right in families of the past, it seems clear that some things have newly gone wrong.”
—Stephanie Coontz (20th century)
“Women have entered the work force . . . partly to express their feelings of self-worth . . . partly because today many families would not survive without two incomes, partly because they are not at all sure their marriages will last. The day of the husband as permanent meal-ticket is over, a fact most women recognize, however they feel about “women’s liberation.””
—Robert Neelly Bellah (20th century)
“A regular council was held with the Indians, who had come in on their ponies, and speeches were made on both sides through an interpreter, quite in the described mode,—the Indians, as usual, having the advantage in point of truth and earnestness, and therefore of eloquence. The most prominent chief was named Little Crow. They were quite dissatisfied with the white man’s treatment of them, and probably have reason to be so.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“The trouble with foreign languages is, you have to think before your speak.”
—Swedish proverb, trans. by Verne Moberg.
“Relying on any one disciplinary approach—time-out, negotiation, tough love, the star system—puts the parenting team at risk. Why? Because children adapt to any method very quickly; today’s effective technique becomes tomorrow’s worn dance.”
—Ron Taffel (20th century)
“Much more frequent in Hollywood than the emergence of Cinderella is her sudden vanishing. At our party, even in those glowing days, the clock was always striking twelve for someone at the height of greatness; and there was never a prince to fetch her back to the happy scene.”
—Ben Hecht (1893–1964)