1

According to the answer provided by Janoma, there are several methods to determine the regularity of a language.

Theorem

Let L ⊆ Σ∗. The following conditions are equivalent:

  • L is generated by a regular expression (i.e., the definition of regular language).
  • L is recognized by a nondeterministic finite automaton (Kleene).
  • L is recognized by a nondeterministic finite automaton without ε-transitions.
  • L is recognized by a deterministic finite automaton (Scott and Rabin).
  • L is generated by a grammar (N, Σ, P, S), where N is a finite subset of Σ∗ (Frazier and Page).
  • L is generated by a left (resp. right) regular context-free grammar.
  • The index of the Nerode relation ≡L is finite (Anil Nerode, Linear automaton transformations, 1958). This is widely (and incorrectly) known as the Myhill-Nerode theorem. ≡L is the relation used to build the minimal DFA of a regular language.
  • The index of the Myhill relation ∼L is finite (John Myhill, Finite Automata and the Representation of Events, 1957). ∼L is the relation used to build the syntactic monoid of an arbitrary language.
  • The syntactic monoid of L is finite (consequence of Myhill's result). We note here that the syntactic monoid, apart from being defined by using relation ∼L, can be defined as a minimal monoid (in size) that recognizes L as a preimage of a homomorphism.
  • L can be recognized by a read-only Turing Machine (trivial).
  • L can be defined by a formula in Monadic second-order logic over strings (Büchi).

However, in none of these methods is there a clear, step by step process that can be followed to conclusively prove that a language is regular.

Does such an algorithm exist? Please provide the necessary references as well.

Alan Whitteaker
  • 113
  • 3

2 Answers2

7

Of course one would first have to specify the language to apply the regularity algorithm. Even for a rather restricted class of language specifications such an algorithm would be impossible.

It is undecidable, for a given context-free grammar, to decide whether it accepts a regular language.

Theorem 6.3 (c) in: Bar-Hillel, Perles, Shamir, On formal properties of simple phrase structure grammars. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 14 (1961) 143–172. doi 10.1524/stuf.1961.14.14.143

Hendrik Jan
  • 31,459
  • 1
  • 54
  • 109
0

A subset $L ⊆ Σ^*$ is regular if and only if $q_L = \{ w \backslash L: w ∈ Σ^* \}$ is finite. The left-quotient is defined by $$ w ∈ Σ^*, L ⊆ Σ^* ↦ w \backslash L = \{ w' ∈ Σ^*: w w' ∈ L \}, $$ and satisfies the properties $$ε \backslash L = L,\quad (w w') \backslash L = w' \backslash (w \backslash L),$$ where $ε ∈ Σ^*$ denotes the empty word.

Whether $L$ is regular or not, the state diagram given by the transitions $A \overset{x}→ x \backslash A$, for $x ∈ Σ$ and $A ⊆ Σ^*$, whose final states are all $A ∋ ε$, contains the state diagrams of the minimal deterministic automaton of every $L ⊆ Σ^*$: it is The Universal State Diagram.

The set of "states" in the diagram accessible from a given $L ⊆ Σ^*$ is just $q_L$, itself, the state set is finite precisely when $L$ is regular and the portion of the state diagram containing $q_L$ with $L$ designated as the start state is the minimal deterministic finite state automaton for $L$. Otherwise if $L$ is not finite, then the automaton is an infinite state automaton - but still deterministic - and may or may not be recursively specifiable.

NinjaDarth
  • 389
  • 1
  • 3