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
Related
I need to construct a pushdown automation for the following language: L = {a^n b^m | 2n>=m }
Can someone help me with it?
There are two approaches that come to mind:
try to write a PDA from scratch using the stack in a sensible way
write a CFG and then rely on the construction that shows PDAs accept the languages of all CFGs
To take approach 1, recognize that PDAs are like NFAs that can push symbols onto a stack and pop them off. If we want 2n >= m, that means we want the number of a's to be at least half the number of b's. That is, we want at least one a for every two b's. That means if we push all the a's on the stack, we need to read no more than two b's for every a on the stack. This suggests a PDA that works like this:
1. read all the a's, pushing into the stack
2. read b's, popping an a for every two b's you see
3. if you run out of stack but still have b's to process, reject
4. if you run out of input at the same time or sooner than you run out of stack, accept
In terms of states and transitions:
Q S E Q' S'
q0 Z a q0 aZ // these transitions read all the a's and
q0 a a q0 aa // push them onto the stack
q0 a b q1 a // these transitions read all the b's and
q1 a b q2 - // pop a's off the stack for every complete
q2 a b q1 a // pair of b's we see. if we run out of a's
// it will crash and reject
q0 Z - q3 Z // these transitions just let us guess at any
q0 a - q3 a // point that we have read all the input and
q1 Z - q3 Z // go to the accepting state. note that if
q1 a - q3 a // we guessed wrong the PDA will crash there
q2 Z - q3 Z // since we have no transitions defined.
q2 a - q3 a // crashing rejects the input.
Here, the accept condition is being in state q3 with no more stack.
To do the second option, you'd write a CFG like this:
S -> aSbb | aS | e
Then your PDA could do the following:
push S onto the stack
pop from the stack and push onto the stack one of the productions for S
if you pop a terminal off the stack, consume the nonterminal from input
if you pop a nonterminal off the stack, replace it with some production for that nonterminal
This nondeterministically generates every possible derivation according to the CFG. If the input is a string in the language, then one of these derivations will consume all the input and leave the stack empty, which is the halt/accept condition.
We need to construct a pushdown automation for the following language: L = {a^n b^m | 2n>=m }
The given condition is 2n >= m, that means we want the number of a's to be at least half the number of b's. That is, we want at least one a for every two b's. That means if we push all the a's on the stack, we need to read no more than two b's for every a on the stack. This suggests a PDA that works like this:
read all the a's, pushing into the stack
read b's, popping an a for every two b's you see
if you run out of stack but still have b's to process, reject
if you run out of input at the same time or sooner than you run out of stack, accept.
The PDA for the problem is as follows −
Transition functions
The transition functions are as follows −
Step 1: δ(q0, a, Z) = (q0, aZ)
Step 2: δ(q0, a, a) = (q0, aa)
Step 3: δ(q0, b, a) = (q1, a)
Step 4: δ(q1, b, a) = (q2, ε)
Step 5: δ(q2, b, a) = (q1, a)
Step 6: δ(q2,b, Z) = dead state.
Step 7: δ(q2,ε, Z) = (qf, Z)
I'm new to functional programming and I'm trying to implement a basic algorithm using OCAML for course that I'm following currently.
I'm trying to implement the following algorithm :
Entries :
- E : a non-empty set of integers
- s : an integer
- d : a positive float different of 0
Output :
- T : a set of integers included into E
m <- min(E)
T <- {m}
FOR EACH e ∈ sort_ascending(E \ {m}) DO
IF e > (1+d)m AND e <= s THEN
T <- T U {e}
m <- e
RETURN T
let f = fun (l: int list) (s: int) (d: float) ->
List.fold_left (fun acc x -> if ... then (list_union acc [x]) else acc)
[(list_min l)] (list_sort_ascending l) ;;
So far, this is what I have, but I don't know how to handle the modification of the "m" variable mentioned in the algorithm... So I need help to understand what is the best way to implement the algorithm, maybe I'm not gone in the right direction.
Thanks by advance to anyone who will take time to help me !
The basic trick of functional programming is that although you can't modify the values of any variables, you can call a function with different arguments. In the initial stages of switching away from imperative ways of thinking, you can imagine making every variable you want to modify into the parameters of your function. To modify the variables, you call the function recursively with the desired new values.
This technique will work for "modifying" the variable m. Think of m as a function parameter instead.
You are already using this technique with acc. Each call inside the fold gets the old value of acc and returns the new value, which is then passed to the function again. You might imagine having both acc and m as parameters of this inner function.
Assuming list_min is defined you should think the problem methodically. Let's say you represent a set with a list. Your function takes this set and some arguments and returns a subset of the original set, given the elements meet certain conditions.
Now, when I read this for the first time, List.filter automatically came to my mind.
List.filter : ('a -> bool) -> 'a list -> 'a list
But you wanted to modify the m so this wouldn't be useful. It's important to know when you can use library functions and when you really need to create your own functions from scratch. You could clearly use filter while handling m as a reference but it wouldn't be the functional way.
First let's focus on your predicate:
fun s d m e -> (float e) > (1. +. d)*.(float m) && (e <= s)
Note that +. and *. are the plus and product functions for floats, and float is a function that casts an int to float.
Let's say the function predicate is that predicate I just mentioned.
Now, this is also a matter of opinion. In my experience I wouldn't use fold_left just because it's just complicated and not necessary.
So let's begin with my idea of the code:
let m = list_min l;;
So this is the initial m
Then I will define an auxiliary function that reads the m as an argument, with l as your original set, and s, d and m the variables you used in your original imperative code.
let rec f' l s d m =
match l with
| [] -> []
| x :: xs -> if (predicate s d m x) then begin
x :: (f' xs s d x)
end
else
f' xs s d m in
f' l s d m
Then for each element of your set, you check if it satisfies the predicate, and if it does, you call the function again but you replace the value of m with x.
Finally you could just call f' from a function f:
let f (l: int list) (s: int) (d: float) =
let m = list_min l in
f' l s d m
Be careful when creating a function like your list_min, what would happen if the list was empty? Normally you would use the Option type to handle those cases but you assumed you're dealing with a non-empty set so that's great.
When doing functional programming it's important to think functional. Pattern matching is super recommended, while pointers/references should be minimal. I hope this is useful. Contact me if you any other doubt or recommendation.
I need to find a function P such that (using Beta - reduction)
P(g, h, i) ->* (h, i, i+1).
I am allowed to use the successor function succ. From wikipedia I got
succ = λn.λf.λx.f(n f x)
My answer is P = λx.λy.λz.yz(λz.λf.λu.f(z f u))z
but I'm not quite sure about it. My logic was the λx would effectively get rid of the g term, then the λy.λz would bring in the h and i via the yz. Then the succ function would bring in i+1 last. I just don't know if my function actually replicates this.
Any help given is appreciated
#melpomene points out that this question is unanswerable without a specific implementation in mind (e.g. for tuples). I am going to presume that your tuple is implemented as:
T = λabcf.f a b c
Or, if you prefer the non-shorthand:
T = (λa.(λb.(λc.(λf.f a b c))))
That is, a function which closes over a, b, and c, and waits for a function f to pass those variables.
If that is the implementation in mind, and assuming normal Church numerals, then the function you spec:
P(g, h, i) ->* (h, i, i+1)
Needs to:
take in a triple (with a, b, and c already applied)
construct a new triple, with
the second value of the old triple
the third value of the old triple
the succ of the third value of the old triple
Here is such a function P:
P = λt.t (λghi.T h i (succ i))
Or again, if you prefer non-shorthand:
P = (λt.t(λg.(λh.(λi.T h i (succ i)))))
This can be partially cleaned up with some helper functions:
SND = λt.t (λabc.b)
TRD = λt.t (λabc.c)
In which case we can write P as:
P = λt.T (SND t) (TRD t) (succ (TRD t))
I am given 2 DFAs. * denotes final states and -> denotes the initial state, defined over the alphabet {a, b}.
1) ->A with a goes to A. -> A with b goes to *B. *B with a goes to *B. *B with b goes to ->A.
The regular expression for this is clearly:
E = a* b(a* + (a* ba* ba*)*)
And the language that it accepts is L1= {w over {a,b} | w is b preceeded by any number of a's followed by any number of a's or w is b preceeded by any number of a's followed by any number of bb with any number of a's in middle of(middle of bb), end or beginning.}
2) ->* A with b goes to ->* A. ->*A with a goes to *B. B with b goes to -> A. *B with a goes to C. C with a goes to C. C with b goes to C.
Note: A is both final and initial state. B is final state.
Now the regular expression that I get for this is:
E = b* ((ab) * + a(b b* a)*)
Finally the language that this DFA accepts is:
L2 = {w over {a, b} | w is n 1's followed by either k 01's or a followed by m 11^r0' s where n,km,r >= 0}
Now the question is, is there a cleaner way to represent the languages L1 and L2 because it does seem ugly. Thanks in advance.
E = a* b(a* + (a* ba* ba*)*)
= a*ba* + a*b(a* ba* ba*)*
= a*ba* + a*b(a*ba*ba*)*a*
= a*b(a*ba*ba*)*a*
= a*b(a*ba*b)*a*
This is the language of all strings of a and b containing an odd number of bs. This might be most compactly denoted symbolically as {w in {a,b}* | #b(w) = 1 (mod 2)}.
For the second one: the only way to get to state B is to see an a in A, and the only way to get to C from outside C is to see an a in B. C is a dead state and the only way to get to it is to see aa starting in A. That is: if you ever see two as in a row, the string is not in the language; the language is the set of all strings over a and b not containing the substring aa. This might be most compactly denoted symbolically as {(a+b)*aa(a+b)*}^c where ^c means "complement".
Can somebody please help me draw a NFA that accepts this language:
{ w | the length of w is 6k + 1 for some k ≥ 0 }
I have been stuck on this problem for several hours now. I do not understand where the k comes into play and how it is used in the diagram...
{ w | the length of w is 6k + 1 for some k ≥ 0 }
We can use the Myhill-Nerode theorem to constructively produce a provably minimal DFA for this language. This is a useful exercise. First, a definition:
Two strings w and x are indistinguishable with respect to a language L iff: (1) for every string y such that wy is in L, xy is in L; (2) for every string z such that xz is in L, wz is in L.
The insight in Myhill-Nerode is that if two strings are indistinguishable w.r.t. a regular language, then a minimal DFA for that language will see to it that the machine ends up in the same state for either string. Indistinguishability is reflexive, symmetric and transitive so we can define equivalence classes on it. Those equivalence classes correspond directly to the set of states in the minimal DFA. Now, to find the equivalence classes for our language. We consider strings of increasing length and see for each one whether it's indistinguishable from any of the strings before it:
e, the empty string, has no strings before it. We need a state q0 to correspond to the equivalence class this string belongs to. The set of strings that can come after e to reach a string in L is L itself; also written c(c^6)*
c, any string of length one, has only e before it. These are not, however, indistinguishable; we can add e to c to get ce = c, a string in L, but we cannot add e to e to get a string in L, since e is not in L. We therefore need a new state q1 for the equivalence class to which c belongs. The set of strings that can come after c to reach a string in L is (c^6)*.
It turns out we need a new state q2 here; the set of strings that take cc to a string in L is ccccc(c^6)*. Show this.
It turns out we need a new state q3 here; the set of strings that take ccc to a string in L is cccc(c^6)*. Show this.
It turns out we need a new state q4 here; the set of strings that take cccc to a string in L is ccc(c^6)*. Show this.
It turns out we need a new state q5 here; the set of strings that take ccccc to a string in L is cc(c^6)*. Show this.
Consider the string cccccc. What strings take us to a string in L? Well, c does. So does c followed by any string of length 6. Interestingly, this is the same as L itself. And we already have an equivalence class for that: e could also be followed by any string in L to get a string in L. cccccc and e are indistinguishable. What's more: since all strings of length 6 are indistinguishable from shorter strings, we no longer need to keep checking longer strings. Our DFA is guaranteed to have one the states q0 - q5 we have already identified. What's more, the work we've done above defines the transitions we need in our DFA, the initial state and the accepting states as well:
The DFA will have a transition on symbol c from state q to state q' if x is a string in the equivalence class corresponding to q and xc is a string in the equivalence class corresponding to q';
The initial state will be the state corresponding to the equivalence class to which e, the empty string, belongs;
A state q is accepting if any string (hence all strings) belonging to the equivalence class corresponding to the language is in the language; alternatively, if the set of strings that take strings in the equivalence class to a string in L includes e, the empty string.
We may use the notes above to write the DFA in tabular form:
q x q'
-- -- --
q0 c q1 // e + c = c
q1 c q2 // c + c = cc
q2 c q3 // cc + c = ccc
q3 c q4 // ccc + c = cccc
q4 c q5 // cccc + c = ccccc
q5 c q0 // ccccc + c = cccccc ~ e
We have q0 as the initial state and the only accepting state is q1.
Here's a NFA which goes 6 states forward then if there is one more character it stops on the final state. Otherwise it loops back non-deterministcally to the start and past the final state.
(Start) S1 -> S2 -> S3 -> S5 -> S6 -> S7 (Final State) -> S8 - (loop forever)
^ |
^ v |_|
|________________________| (non deterministically)