Skip to main content

Learnability: Admissible, co-finite, and hypersimple languages

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP 1993)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 700))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 125 Accesses

Abstract

Presented is a surprising characterization of hypersimple sets in algorithmic learning theory. It is used herein to obtain an elegant, tight separation result for learnability criteria. It is argued that such separation results may yield insight for eventual characterizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. L. Blum and M. Blum. Toward a mathematical theory of inductive inference. Information and Control, 28:125–155, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Blum. A machine independent theory of the complexity of recursive functions. Journal of the ACM, 14:322–336, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Case. Periodicity in generations of automata. Mathematical Systems Theory, 8:15–32, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. Case. Learning machines. In W. Demopoulos and A. Marras, editors, Language Learning and Concept Acquisition. Ablex Publishing Company, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Case. The power of vacillation. In D. Haussler and L. Pitt, editors, Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pages 133–142. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1988. Expanded in [Cas92].

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Case. The power of vacillation in language learning. Technical Report 93-08, University of Delaware, 1992. Expands on [Cas88]; journal article under review.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Case and C. Lynes. Machine inductive inference and language identification. In M. Nielsen and E. M. Schmidt, editors, Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 140, pages 107–115. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Fulk. A Study of Inductive Inference machines. PhD thesis, SUNY at Buffalo, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. Fulk. Prudence and other conditions on formal language learning. Information and Computation, 85:1–11, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  10. E. M. Gold. Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10:447–474, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Hopcroft and J. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory Languages and Computation. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. Joseph and P. Young. Independence results in computer science? Journal of Computer and System Sciences, pages 205–222, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  13. G. Kreisel. Independent recursive axiomizability. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 22:109, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  14. D. McNeill. Developmental psycholinguistics. In F. Smith and G. A. Miller, editors, The Genesis of Language, pages 15–84. MIT Press, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. Machtey and P. Young. An Introduction to the General Theory of Algorithms. North Holland, New York, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Osherson, M. Stob, and S. Weinstein. Ideal learning machines. Cognitive Science, 6:277–290, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. Osherson, M. Stob, and S. Weinstein. Learning theory and natural language. Cognition, 17:1–28, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  18. D. Osherson, M. Stob, and S. Weinstein. Systems that Learn, An Introduction to Learning Theory for Cognitive and Computer Scientists. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D. Osherson and S. Weinstein. Criteria of language learning. Information and Control, 52:123–138, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  20. D. Osherson and S. Weinstein. A note on formal learning theory. Cognition, 11:77–88, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  21. M. Pour-El. Independent axiomatization and its relation to the hypersimple set. Zeitschr. j. math. Logik und Grundlagen d. Math. Bd., 14:449–456, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. Pinker. Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7:217–283, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  23. E. Post. Recursively enumerable sets of positive integers and their decision problems. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 50:284–316, 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  24. H. Rogers. Gödel numberings of partial recursive functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 23:331–341, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  25. H. Rogers. Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. McGraw Hill, New York, 1967. Reprinted, MIT Press 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. Royer. A Connotational Theory of Program Structure. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 273. Springer Verlag, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  27. K. Wexler and P. Culicover. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  28. K. Wexler. On extensional learnability. Cognition, 11:89–95, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Andrzej Lingas Rolf Karlsson Svante Carlsson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Baliga, G., Case, J. (1993). Learnability: Admissible, co-finite, and hypersimple languages. In: Lingas, A., Karlsson, R., Carlsson, S. (eds) Automata, Languages and Programming. ICALP 1993. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 700. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56939-1_80

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56939-1_80

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-56939-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47826-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics