3

Let’s define a pushdown transducer as a 9-tuple $V = (A, B, S, Q_A, Q_S, \phi, \psi, \chi, q_0)$, where $A$ is the finite input alphabet, $B$ is the finite output alphabet, $S$ is the finite stack alphabet, $Q_A$ are the finite set of read-from-input states, $Q_S$ is the finite set of read-from-stack states, $\phi: (Q_A \times A) \cup (Q_S \times (S \cup \{ \epsilon \})) \to (Q_A \cup Q_S)$ (where $\epsilon \not\in S$) - is the state transition function, $\psi: (Q_A \times A) \cup (Q_S \times (S \cup \{ \epsilon \})) \to S^*$ (where $\epsilon \not\in S$) is stack transition function, $\chi: (Q_A \times A) \cup (Q_S \times (S \cup \{ \epsilon \})) \to B^*$ (where $\epsilon \not\in S$) is output function, $q_0 \in Q_A$ is the initial state. Now, let’s define the total transducer function of $V$ of $V$ as $f_V: A^* \to (Q_A \cup Q_S) \cup S^* \to B^*$ defined by recurrence relation

$$f_V(\Lambda, q, \sigma) = \Lambda$$

$$f_V(a\alpha, q, \Lambda) = \begin{cases} \chi(q, a) f_V(\alpha, \phi(q, a), \psi(q, a)) & \quad q \in Q_A \\ \chi(q, \epsilon) f_V(\alpha, \phi(q, \epsilon), \psi(q, \epsilon)) & \quad q \in Q_S \end{cases}$$

$$f_V(a\alpha, q, \sigma s) = \begin{cases} \chi(q, a) f_V(\alpha, \phi(q, a), \sigma s \psi(q, a)) & \quad q \in Q_A \\ \chi(q, s) f_V(\alpha, \phi(q, s), \sigma \psi(q, s)) & \quad q \in Q_S \end{cases}$$

and limited transduction function as $t_V(A^*) = f_V(A^*, q_0, \Lambda)$.

We call a deterministic function $A^* \to B^*$ a finitary pushdown transduction iff it is a limited transduction function of some pushdown transducer.

We call a deterministic function $f:A^{\infty} \to B^{\infty}$ an infinitary pushdown transduction iff there exists some finitary pushdown transduction $g: A^* \to B^*$ such that $\forall \alpha \in A^*, \beta \in A^\infty$ we have $f(\alpha \beta) = g(\alpha)f(\beta)$.

Pushdown transducers are a more powerful computation model than finite state transducers, but less powerful than Turing machines.

Now, let's say that a sequence $\alpha = a_0 a_1 a_2 ... \in A^\infty$ is ultimately periodic iff $\exists t, k \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\forall n > t$ we have $a_{n + k} = a_n$.

Now, suppose $\alpha \in A^\infty$ is an ultimately periodic sequence and $f: A^\infty \to B^\infty$ is an infinitary pushdown transduction. Is $f(\alpha)$ also periodic?

If $f$ is a regular transduction, then periodicity of $f(\alpha)$ is an easy consequence of pigeonhole principle. However, that proof does not work for pushdown transductions due to the fact that the number of possible contents of the stack is infinite.

Chain Markov
  • 16,012
  • Do you mean ultimately periodic instead of periodic sequence? – J.-E. Pin Jan 07 '21 at 05:46
  • @J.-E.Pin, yes. However, in the textbook from which I got my first acquaintance with DFAs they were called just periodic. To avoid further confusion, I added the definition I was using to the body of the question. – Chain Markov Jan 07 '21 at 10:38

0 Answers0