Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byRoxanne Watts Modified over 9 years ago
1
1 Dal non-determinismo al determinismo ( nei linguaggi 2dim ): alcune riflessioni Marcella Anselmo, Dora Giammarresi, Maria Madonia, Antonio Restivo Riunione Prin. Varese, luglio 2006
2
2 finite alphabet ** all 2dim rectangular words (pictures) over L ** 2dim language p L has size (m,n) Column concatenation Row concatenation Column/Row star 2dim Languages pq p q = p q = p q
3
3 Local 2dim Languages L is local if there exists a finite set of tiles that contains all allowed subpictures of size (2,2,), i.e. p L if and only if any 2 2 sub-picture of is in p tile: a square picture of size (2,2) bordered picture p: p =
4
4 L d = the set of square pictures with symbol “1” in all main diagonal positions and symbol “0” in the other positions (Usual) Example of local language 10 01 10 00 10 00 00 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 00 01 0 00 0 0 0 1 = 01 00 100 010 001 p = ##### #100# #010# #001# #####
5
5 L is recognizable by tiling system if L= (L’) where L’ is a local language and is a mapping from the alphabet of L’ to the alphabet of L Recognizable 2dim Languages REC is the family of two-dimensional languages recognizable by tiling system REC is closed almost under all operations but it is not closed under complement ( , , , ), where L’=L( ), is called tiling system
6
6 (Usual) Example L Sq = all squares over = {a}. L Sq is recognizable by tiling system. Set L’=L d and (1)= (0)= a 100 010 001 L d aaa aaa aaa
7
7 #### (Usual) Example L Sq = squares over {a}. Use L’=L d (1)= (0)= a aaa aaa aaa 10 01 10 00 10 00 00 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 00 01 0 00 0 0 0 1 = 01 00 ##### ## ## ## # p = 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 “Computing” by a tiling system (from a tiling system to an automaton) First, decide a scanning strategy!
8
8 “Computing” by a tiling system (from a tiling system to an automaton) Remark :Tiling system = “undirectional” transitions Definition: A 2dim finite automaton is Tiling system + scanning procedure Local picture is the run of the automaton. Remark : All 2dim finite automata “correspond” to family REC (i.e. scanning procedure does not matter!) Ex: 2OTA (2dim on-line tesselation automata)
9
9 Scanning strategies (I) ######## ## ## ## ## ## ## ######## 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 34 3536 Diagonal (“2OTA”) ######## ## ## ## ## ## ## ######## By column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 31 32 33 34 35 36
10
10 Scanning strategies (II) ######## ## ## ## ## ## ## ######## Snake-like 123 456 7891011 12 1314 343536 Free ######## ## ## ## ## ## ## ######## 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 36
11
11 A remark about REC A tiling system (= local language + projection) “generalizes” to 2 dim a non-deterministic finite automaton. Family REC is not closed under complement Definition of REC is intrinsically non-deterministic and it is not possible to eliminate non-determinism without getting a smaller class!
12
12 From non-determinism to determinism.... Non-determinism Possible accepting computations: “several” Possible backtracking steps at each step of computation: linear in the size of input [if pictures: =O(m n)] Determinism Possible accepting computations: 1 Possible backtracking steps at each step of computation: 0
13
13 Remark on 1DIM case : In string languages 2 definitions possible: -Determinism from left to right - Co-determinism from right to left Correspond to same class!....choose one definition… ?? Remark: Languages recognized by automata that are both deterministic and co-deterministic are smaller class!
14
14 A tiling system is Top-Left-deterministic if a,b,c and s unique tile such that (s)=d. ab cd (Analogously TR-,BL-,BR-deterministic tiling system) ?? There is an unique way to fill this position with a symbol of L is deterministic if it has a TL- or TR- or BL- or BR- deterministic tiling system Deterministic Recognizable Languages (DREC) Classical definition (only a bit extended)
15
15 L col-1n REC a baba babaa bb ababb aaaab ababbb p’= L col-1n = {p | first col = last col } {a,b} ** New Example Local alphabet: = {x y } Projection “erase” subscripts: ( x y ) = x L col-1n DREC L col- 1i = {p | 1<i n, first col = col i} DREC
16
16 From non-determinism to determinism: what can we define in beetween? Non-determinism Possible accepting computations: “several” Possible backtracking steps at each step of computation: linear in the size of p (m n) Determinism Possible accepting computations: 1 Possible backtracking steps at each step of computation: 0 Unambiguity one
17
17 Unambiguous Recognizable Languages (UREC) Def [GR92] A tiling system ( , , , ) is unambiguous for L ** if the projection π is injective on L( ) (i.e. for any p L there is a unique p’ L’ such that (p’)=p). UREC: all unambiguous recognizable 2dim languages. L ** is unambiguous if it admits an unambiguous tiling system. UREC REC Generalization in 2dims of unambiguous automata for strings
18
18 UREC and REC L col- ij REC L col- ij UREC L col- ij = ** L col-1n ** and REC is closed with respect to UREC REC L col- ij = i j i,j: col i = col j Necess. Cond. for UREC
19
19 Properties of UREC Proposition UREC is not closed under row/column concatenation/closure. Proposition UREC is closed under intersection and rotation operations.
20
20 From non-determinism to determinism: what can we define in beetween? (2) Non-determinism Possible accepting computations: “several” Possible backtracking steps at each step of computation: linear in the size of p (m n) Determinism Possible accepting computations: 1 Possible backtracking steps at each step of computation: 0 one dimension of p (m or n) “line”-unambiguity one
21
21 A tiling system is Left-Right Column-Unambiguous if, after having computed the local symbols in an entire column, the local symbols on the next column are univocally determined. ?? L is Col-UREC if L has a tiling system that is LR- or RL- column unambiguous. Column-Unambiguos Languages (Col-UREC) Remark: Backtracking at each step of possibly O(m) steps.
22
22 A tiling system is Top-Down Row-Unambiguous if, after having computed the local symbols in an entire row of a picture, the local symbols on the next row are univocally determined. ?? L is Row-UREC if L has a tiling system that is TD- or DT- column unambiguous. Row-Unambiguos Languages (Row-UREC) Remark: Backtracking at each step of possibly O(n) steps.
23
23 (A new) Example = {a, b} L Sq-cent-a = odd-side squares with a in center position abba bbab aaaa babb b b b b a a aa a a0a0 b0b0 b0b0 a2a2 b1b1 b0b0 a2a2 b0b0 a0a0 a1a1 a0a0 a0a0 b2b2 a0a0 b1b1 b0b0 b1b1 b0b0 b0b0 b1b1 a0a0 a0a0 a0a0 a2a2 a0a0 L Sq-cent-a Col-UREC, Row-UREC L Sq-cent-a DREC By an “old” proof by Inoue et al.
24
24 Col-UREC and UREC L col- 1ij n UREC L col- 1ijn Col-UREC L col- 1ijn = L col- 1j L col- in and UREC is closed with respect to Col- UREC UREC i,j: col 1 = col j col i = col n L col- 1ij n = 1ijn Necess. Cond. for Col-UREC
25
25 A necessary condition for unambiguity Theorem Let L **. There is a k such that, for all m, 1.If L Col-UREC then Row(M L(m) ) k m 2.If L UREC then Rank Q (M L(m) ) k m L(m) L is the subset of all pictures with m rows. It can be viewed as a string language over the columns alphabet. S *, regular string language. M S is the boolean matrix M S =|a | *, * where a = 1 iff L. The number of different rows, Row(M S ), is finite. Idea of Proof Use Matz’s Theorem and Hromkovic et al. Theorem
26
26 From 2dim to 1dim Theorem [ Matz 97 ] Let L **. If L REC, then there is a k such that, for all m, there is a finite string automaton A m with k m states for L(m). Fact If L UREC, then A m is an unambiguous automaton with k m states for L(m). If L Col-UREC, then A m is a deterministic automaton with k m states for L(m).
27
27 Theorem of Hromkovic et al. Theorem (Hromkovic et al.) For every regular string language S *, d(S) = Row(M S ) uns(S) Rank Q (M S ). d(S) the size of the minimal deterministic automaton accepting S uns(S) the size of a minimal unambiguous non- deterministic automaton accepting S.
28
28 The following inclusions are all strict: DREC Col-UREC UREC REC Collecting all classes… a 1ijn i j
29
29 A separation result Theorem Whatever we choose a definition of deterministic 2dim finite automaton, the family of corresponding languages is strictly included in UREC. Proof : By previous strict inclusions results (Col-UREC UREC ) Det-REC is strictly included in UREC, for any definition of Det-REC we choose.
30
30 An undecidability result for UREC Theorem Given a tiling system ( , , , ) for L **, it is undecidable whether it is unambiguous. Proof : By reduction from the undecidable 2dimensional Unique Decipherability Problem.
31
31 A decidability result for Col-UREC (Row-UREC) Theorem Given a tiling system T = ( , , , ) for L **, it is decidable whether it is col-unambiguous. Proof : Let M=Card {( , ) : , }. T col-unambiguous No pair of pictures sp with p, s, t n,1 s t (s) = (t) Any 2 2 sub-picture of p s, p t in n M tp
32
32 A tiling system is Top-Left Diagonal-Unambiguous if, after having computed the local symbols in an entire diagonal of a picture, the local symbols on the next diagonal are univocally determined. ?? L is Diag-UREC if L has a tiling system that is TL-, TD-, BL- or BR- diagonal unambiguous. REMARK: Diag-Unambiguos Languages Remark: NO backtracking at each step
33
33 Conjecture: If L REC\UREC then L REC Is UREC largest subset in REC closed under complement? Is UREC (Col-UREC) closed under complement? Open Problems Is L(4NFA) UREC?
34
34 Conclusioni alle riflessioni… Tiling systems are a “compact” way to represent classes of finite state automata on 2 dims. Unambiguos languages are a strict intermediate class between non-deterministic and deterministic families.
35
35 riflettere a mente fresca…
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.