Advertisement

The structure and complexity of minimal NFA's over a unary alphabet

  • Tao Jiang
  • Edward McDowell
  • B. Ravikumar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 560)

Abstract

Many difficult open problems in theoretical computer science center around nondeterminism. We study the fundamental problem of converting a given deterministic finite automaton (DFA) to a minimal nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA). Despite extensive work on finite automata, this fundamental problem has remained open. Recently, in [Ji91] we studied this problem and showed that this (and related) problems are computationally hard. Here we study the restriction of this problem to the case when the input DFA is over a one-letter alphabet. Even in this restricted case the problem is computationally hard even though our evidence of hardness is different from (and is weaker than) the standard ones such as NP-hardness. Let A → B denote the problem of converting a finite automaton of type A to a minimal finite automaton of type B. Our main result is that DFA → NFA, when the input is a unary cyclic DFA (a DFA whose graph is a simple cycle), is in NP but not in P unless NP ⊑ DTIME(nO(log n)). Our work was also motivated by the problem of finding structurally simple ‘normal forms’ of NFA's over a unary alphabet. We present some normal forms for minimal NFA's over a unary alphabet and present an application to lower bounds on the size complexity of an NFA. In fact, the normal form result is used in a nontrivial manner to show the NP membership result stated above.

Keywords

Normal Form Start State Vertex Cover Regular Language Finite Automaton 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Ad77]
    Adleman, L. and K. Manders, ‘Reducibility, randomness and intractability', Proc. of 9th Annual ACM symp. on Theory of Computing, 1977, 151–163.Google Scholar
  2. [Ch86]
    Chrobak, M., ‘Finite automata and unary languages', Theoretical Computer Science 47, 1986, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Co71]
    Cook, S., ‘Complexity of theorem proving procedures', Proc. of 3rd Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, 1971, 151–158.Google Scholar
  4. [Eh76]
    Ehrenfeucht, A. and P. Zeiger, ‘Complexity measures for regular expressions', Journal of Computer and System Sciences 12, 1976, 134–146.Google Scholar
  5. [Ga78]
    Garey, M. and D. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to NP-completeness, 1978, Freeman, San Fransisco.Google Scholar
  6. [Gr89]
    Graham, R., D. Knuth and O. Patashnik, Concrete Mathematics, 1989, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  7. [Ho79]
    Hopcroft, J. and J. Ullman, Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation, 1979, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
  8. [Hu73]
    Hunt, H., ‘On the time and tape complexity of languages', Proc. of 5th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, 1973, 10–19.Google Scholar
  9. [Hu74]
    Hunt, H. and D. Rosenkrantz, ‘Computational Parallels between regular and context-free languages', Proc. of 6th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, 1974, 64–74.Google Scholar
  10. [Hu76]
    Hunt H., D. Rosenkrantz and T.Szymanski, ‘On the equivalence, containment and covering problems for the regular and context-free languages', Jl. of Comp. and Sys. Sciences 12, 1976, 222–268.Google Scholar
  11. [Ji91]
    Jiang, T. and B. Ravikumar, ‘Minimal NFA problems are hard', Proc. 18th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, 1991, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 510, Springer-Verlag, 629–640.Google Scholar
  12. [Ka72]
    Karp, R., ‘Reducibility among combinatorial problems', in R.E. Miller and J.W. Thatcher (eds.,), Complexity of Computer Computations, 1972, Plenum Press, NY, 85–103.Google Scholar
  13. [Ko77]
    Kozen, D., ‘Lower bounds for natural proof systems', Proc. of 18th Annual IEEE Symp. on FOCS, 1977, 254–266.Google Scholar
  14. [Me71]
    Meyer, A. and M. Fischer, ‘Economy of description by automata, grammars and formal systems', Proc. of 12th Annual IEEE Symp. on Switching and Automata Theory, 1971, IEEE Computer Society, Washington D.C., 188–191.Google Scholar
  15. [Me72]
    Meyer, A. and L. Stockmeyer, ‘The equivalence problem for regular expressions with squaring requires exponential space', Proc. of 13th Annual IEEE Symp. on Switching and Automata Theory, 1972, IEEE Computer Society, 125–129.Google Scholar
  16. [P177]
    Plaisted, D., ‘Sparse complex polynomials and polynomial reducibility', Jl. of Comp. and Sys. Sciences 14, 1977, 210–221.Google Scholar
  17. [Ra59]
    Rabin, M. and D. Scott, ‘Finite automata and their decision problems', IBM Journal of Res. and Development 3, 1959, 114–125.Google Scholar
  18. [Ra89]
    Ravikumar, B. and O. Ibarra, ‘Relating the type of ambiguity to the succinctness of their representations', SIAM Journal on Computing 18, 1989, 1263–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [St73]
    Stockmeyer, L. and A. Meyer, ‘Word problems requiring exponential time’ (prelim, report), Proc. of 5th Annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing, 1973, 1–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tao Jiang
    • 1
  • Edward McDowell
    • 2
  • B. Ravikumar
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and SystemsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceRhode Island CollegeProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science and StatisticsUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations