I am little confused about either can we make pda for a^n b^n+1 language ? As to my knowledge pda can be made only for CFL. Does a^n b^n+1 is cfl or not? Plz help
The Context free grammar of a^n b^n+1 would be:
S -> aS'bb
S' -> aS'b | empty
Since the CFG exists, the PDA is also possible for this language.
Given Language : a^n b^(n+1)
It is a Context Free Language Because Context Free Grammar exits.
S -> aS'bb
S'-> aS'b| epsilon(€)
So, we can construct a PDA(Push Down Automata) for it.
PDA for a^n b^(n+1) is
𝛿(q0, a, Z0) =(q0, aZ0)
𝛿(q0, a, a) =(q0, aa)
𝛿(q0, b, a) =(q1, €(pop))
𝛿(q1, b, a) =(q1, €(pop))
𝛿(q1, b, Z0) =(q2, Z0)
Here, 𝛿 represents transition.
€ represents pop operation.
q0 is the initial state.
q2 is the final state.
whenever, any string in the above language is passed to PDA it reaches final state q2.
If strings not present in above language does not reach q2.hence,those strings are rejected.
examples of strings in the language: a^3b^4 ,a^59b^60 etc.
PDA Image:
[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RPdBP.jpg
Related
So I'm trying to define a function apply_C :: "('a multiset ⇒ 'a option) ⇒ 'a multiset ⇒ 'a multiset"
It takes in a function C that may convert an 'a multiset into a single element of type 'a. Here we assume that each element in the domain of C is pairwise mutually exclusive and not the empty multiset (I already have another function that checks these things). apply will also take another multiset inp. What I'd like the function to do is check if there is at least one element in the domain of C that is completely contained in inp. If this is the case, then perform a set difference inp - s where s is the element in the domain of C and add the element the (C s) into this resulting multiset. Afterwards, keep running the function until there are no more elements in the domain of C that are completely contained in the given inp multiset.
What I tried was the following:
fun apply_C :: "('a multiset ⇒ 'a option) ⇒ 'a multiset ⇒ 'a multiset" where
"apply_C C inp = (if ∃s ∈ (domain C). s ⊆# inp then apply_C C (add_mset (the (C s)) (inp - s)) else inp)"
However, I get this error:
Variable "s" occurs on right hand side only:
⋀C inp s.
apply_C C inp =
(if ∃s∈domain C. s ⊆# inp
then apply_C C
(add_mset (the (C s)) (inp - s))
else inp)
I have been thinking about this problem for days now, and I haven't been able to find a way to implement this functionality in Isabelle. Could I please have some help?
After thinking more about it, I don't believe there is a simple solutions for that Isabelle.
Do you need that?
I have not said why you want that. Maybe you can reduce your assumptions? Do you really need a function to calculate the result?
How to express the definition?
I would use an inductive predicate that express one step of rewriting and prove that the solution is unique. Something along:
context
fixes C :: ‹'a multiset ⇒ 'a option›
begin
inductive apply_CI where
‹apply_CI (M + M') (add_mset (the (C M)) M')›
if ‹M ∈ dom C›
context
assumes
distinct: ‹⋀a b. a ∈ dom C ⟹ b ∈ dom C ⟹ a ≠ b ⟹ a ∩# b = {#}› and
strictly_smaller: ‹⋀a b. a ∈ dom C ⟹ size a > 1›
begin
lemma apply_CI_determ:
assumes
‹apply_CI⇧*⇧* M M⇩1› and
‹apply_CI⇧*⇧* M M⇩2› and
‹⋀M⇩3. ¬apply_CI M⇩1 M⇩3›
‹⋀M⇩3. ¬apply_CI M⇩2 M⇩3›
shows ‹M⇩1 = M⇩2›
sorry
lemma apply_CI_smaller:
‹apply_CI M M' ⟹ size M' ≤ size M›
apply (induction rule: apply_CI.induct)
subgoal for M M'
using strictly_smaller[of M]
by auto
done
lemma wf_apply_CI:
‹wf {(x, y). apply_CI y x}›
(*trivial but very annoying because not enough useful lemmas on wf*)
sorry
end
end
I have no clue how to prove apply_CI_determ (no idea if the conditions I wrote down are sufficient or not), but I did spend much thinking about it.
After that you can define your definitions with:
definition apply_C where
‹apply_C M = (SOME M'. apply_CI⇧*⇧* M M' ∧ (∀M⇩3. ¬apply_CI M' M⇩3))›
and prove the property in your definition.
How to execute it
I don't see how to write an executable function on multisets directly. The problem you face is that one step of apply_C is nondeterministic.
If you can use lists instead of multisets, you get an order on the elements for free and you can use subseqs that gives you all possible subsets. Rewrite using the first element in subseqs that is in the domain of C. Iterate as long as there is any possible rewriting.
Link that to the inductive predicate to prove termination and that it calculates the right thing.
Remark that in general you cannot extract a list out of a multiset, but it is possible to do so in some cases (e.g., if you have a linorder over 'a).
Briefly, I have a EBNF grammar and so a parse-tree, but I do not know if there is a procedure to translate it in First Order Logic.
For example:
DR ::= E and P
P ::= B | (and P)* | (or P)*
B ::= L | P (and L P)
L ::= a
Yes, there is. The general pattern for translating a production of the form
A ::= B C ... D
is to paraphrase is declaratively as saying
A sequence of terminals s is an A (or: A generates the sequence s, if you prefer that formulation) if:
s is the concatenation of s_1, s_2, ... s_n, and
s_1 is a B / B generates the sequence s_1, and
s_2 is a C / C generates the sequence s_2, and
...
s_n is a D / D generates the sequence s_n.
Assuming we write these in the obvious way using a generates predicate, and that we can write concatenation using a || operator, your first rule becomes (if I am right to guess that E and P are non-terminals and "and" is a terminal symbol) something like
generates(DR,s) ⊃ generates(E,s1)
∧ generates(and,s2)
∧ generates(P,s3)
∧ s = s1 || s2 || s3
To establish the consequent (i.e. prove that s is an A), prove the antecedents. As long as the grammar does actually generate some sentences, and as long as you have some premises defining the "generates" relation for terminal symbols, the proof will be straightforward.
Prolog definite-clause grammars are a beautiful instantiation of this pattern. It takes some of us a while to understand and appreciate the use of difference lists in DCGs, but they handle the partitioning of s into subsequences and the association of the subsequences with the different parts of the right hand side much more elegantly than the simple translation into logic given above.
Click here for the answer. Turing Machine
The question is to construct a Turing Machine which accepts the regular expression,
L = {a^n b^n | n>= 1}.
I am not sure if my answer is correct or wrong. Thank you in advance for your reply.
You cannot "accept the regular expression", only the language it describes. And what you provide is not a regular expression, but a set description. In fact, the language is not regular and therefore cannot be described by standard regular expressions.
The machine from your answer accepts the language described by the regular expression a^+ b^+.
A TM could mark the first a (e.g. by converting it to A) then delete the first b. And for each n one loop. If you and up with a string only of A, then accept.
As stated before, language L = {a^nb^n; n >= 1} cannot be described by regular expressions, it doesn't belong into the category of regular grammars. This language in particular is an example of context-free grammar, and thus it can be described by context-free grammar and recognized by pushdown automaton (an automaton with LIFO memory, a stack).
Grammar for this language would look something like this:
G = (V, S, R, P)
Where:
V is finite set of non-terminal characters, V = { S }
S is finite set of terminal characters, S = { a, b }
R is relation that describes "rewrites" from non-terminal characters to non-terminals and terminals, in this case R = { S -> aSb, S -> ab }
P is starting non-terminal character, P = S
A pushdown automata recognizing this language would be more complex, as it is a 7-tuple M = (Q, S, G, D, q0, Z, F)
Q is set of states
S is input alphabet
G is stack alphabet
D is the transition relation
q0 is start state
Z is initial stack symbol
F is set of accepting states
For our case, it would be:
Q = { q0, q1, qF }
S = { a, b }
G = { z0, X }
D will take a form of relation (current state, input character, top of stack) -> (output state, top of stack) (meaning you can move to a different state and rewrite top of stack (erase it, rewrite it or let it be)
(q0, a, z0) -> (q0, Xz0) - reading the first a
(q0, a, X) -> (q0, XX) - reading consecutive a's
(q0, b, X) -> (q1, e) - reading first b
(q1, b, X) -> (q1, e) - reading consecutive b's
(q1, e, z0) -> (qF, e) - reading last b
where e is empty word (sometimes called epsilon)
q0 = q0
Z = z0
F = { qF }
The language L = {a^n b^n | n≥1} represents a kind of language where we use only 2 character, i.e., a, b. In the beginning language has some number of a’s followed by equal number of b’s . Any such string which falls in this category will be accepted by this language. The beginning and end of string is marked by $ sign.
Step-1:
Replace a by X and move right, Go to state Q1.
Step-2:
Replace a by a and move right, Remain on same state
Replace Y by Y and move right, Remain on same state
Replace b by Y and move right, go to state Q2.
Step-3:
Replace b by b and move left, Remain on same state
Replace a by a and move left, Remain on same state
Replace Y by Y and move left, Remain on same state
Replace X by X and move right, go to state Q0.
Step-5:
If symbol is Y replace it by Y and move right and Go to state Q4
Else go to step 1
Step-6:
Replace Y by Y and move right, Remain on same state
If symbol is $ replace it by $ and move left, STRING IS ACCEPTED, GO TO FINAL STATE Q4
My problem is the following. I have a list of substitutions, including one substitution for each letter of the alphabet, but also some substitutions for groups of more than one letter. For example, in my cipher p becomes b, l becomes w, e becomes i, but le becomes by, and ple becomes memi.
So, while I can think of a few simple/naïve ways of implementing this cipher, it's not very efficient, and I was wondering what the most efficient way to do it would be. The answer doesn't have to be in any particular language, a general structured English algorithm would be fine, but if it must be in some language I'd prefer C++ or Java or similar.
EDIT: I don't need this cipher to be decipherable, an algorithm that mapped all single letters to the letter 'w' but mapped the string 'had' to the string 'jon' instead should be ok, too (then the string "Mary had a little lamb." would become "Wwww jon w wwwwww wwww.").
I'd like the algorithm to be fully general.
One possible approach is to use deterministic automaton. The closest to your problem and commonly used example is Aho–Corasick string matching algorithm. The difference will be, instead of matching you would like to emit cypher at some transition. Generally at each transition you will emit or do not emit cypher.
In your example
p -> b
l -> w
e -> i
le -> by
ple -> memi
The automaton (in Erlang like pseudocode)
start(p) -> p(next());
start(l) -> l(next());
start(e) -> e(next());
...
p(l) -> pl(next);
p(X) -> emit(b), start(X).
l(e) -> emit(by), start(next());
l(X) -> emit(w), start(X).
e(X) -> emit(i), start(X).
pl(e) -> emit(memi), start(next());
pl(X) -> emit(b), l(X).
If you are not familiar with Erlang, start(), p() are functions each for one state. Each line with -> is one transition and the actions follows the ->. emit() is function which emits cypher and next() is function returning next character. The X is variable for any other character.
In DFA we can do the intersection of two automata by doing the cross product of the states of the two automata and accepting those states that are accepting in both the initial automata.
Union is performed similarly. How ever although i can do union in NFA easily using epsilon transition how do i do their intersection?
You can use the cross-product construction on NFAs just as you would DFAs. The only changes are how you'd handle ε-transitions. Specifically, for each state (qi, rj) in the cross-product automaton, you add an ε-transition from that state to each pair of states (qk, rj) where there's an ε-transition in the first machine from qi to qk and to each pair of states (qi, rk) where there's an ε-transition in the second machine from rj to rk.
Alternatively, you can always convert the NFAs into DFAs and then compute the cross product of those DFAs.
Hope this helps!
We can also use De Morgan's Laws: A intersection B = (A' U B')'
Taking the union of the compliments of the two NFA's is comparatively simpler, especially if you are used to the epsilon method of union.
There is a huge mistake in templatetypedef's answer.
The product automaton of L1 and L2 which are NFAs :
New states Q = product of the states of L1 and L2.
Now the transition function:
a is a symbol in the union of both automatons' alphabets
delta( (q1,q2) , a) = delta_L1(q1 , a) X delta_L2(q2 , a)
which means you should multiply the set that is the result of delta_L1(q1 , a) with the set that results from delta_L2(q1 , a).
The problem in the templatetypedef's answer is that the product result (qk ,rk) is not mentioned.
Probably a late answer, but since I had the similar problem today I felt like sharing it. Realise the meaning of intersection first. Here, it means that given the string e, e should be accepted by both automata.
Consider the folowing automata:
m1 accepting the language {w | w contains '11' as a substring}
m2 accepting the language {w | w contains '00' as a substring}
Intuitively, m = m1 ∩ m2 is the automaton accepting the strings containing both '11' and '00' as substrings. The idea is to simulate both automata simultaneously.
Let's now formally define the intersection.
m = (Q, Σ, Δ, q0, F)
Let's start by defining the states for m; this is, as mentioned above the Cartesian product of the states in m1 and m2. So, if we have a1, a2 as labels for the states in m1, and b1, b2 the states in m2, Q will consist of following states: a1b1, a2b1, a1b2, a2b2. The idea behind this product construction is to keep track of where we are in both m1 and m2.
Σ most likely remains the same, however in some cases they differ and we just take the union of alphabets in m1 and m2.
q0 is now the state in Q containing both the start state of m1 and the start state of m2. (a1b1, to give an example.)
F contains state s IF and only IF both states mentioned in s are accept states of m1, m2 respectively.
Last but not least, Δ; we define delta again in terms of the Cartesian product, as follows: Δ(a1b1, E) = Δ(m1)(a1, E) x Δ(m2)(b1, E), as also mentioned in one of the answers above (if I am not mistaken). The intuitive idea behind this construction for Δ is just to tear a1b1 apart and consider the states a1 and b1 in their original automaton. Now we 'iterate' each possible edge, let's pick E for example, and see where it brings us in the original automaton. After that, we glue these results together using the Cartesian product. If (a1, E) is present in m1 but not Δ(b1, E) in m2, then the edge will not exist in m; otherwise we'll have some kind of a union construction.
An alternative to constructing the product automaton is allowing more complicated acceptance criteria. Ordinarily, an NFA accepts an input string when it has reached any one of a set of accepting final states. That can be extended to boolean combinations of states. Specifically, you construct the automaton for the intersection like you do for the union, but consider the resulting automaton to accept an input string only when it is in (what corresponds to) accepting final states in both automata.