1996
DOI: 10.1016/0020-0190(96)00095-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A lower bound technique for the size of nondeterministic finite automata

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
53
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 106 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
53
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The two central questions studied in the present paper are as follows: First, how hard is it to minimize extended regular expressions (both with respect to their length, and with respect to the number of variables they contain), and second, how succinctly can extended 1 One can show this by proving that every NFA for Ln requires at least O(2 n ) states, e. g., by using the technique by Glaister and Shallit [14]. Due to the construction used in the proof of Theorem 2.3 in [17], this also gives a lower bound on the length of the regular expressions for Ln.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two central questions studied in the present paper are as follows: First, how hard is it to minimize extended regular expressions (both with respect to their length, and with respect to the number of variables they contain), and second, how succinctly can extended 1 One can show this by proving that every NFA for Ln requires at least O(2 n ) states, e. g., by using the technique by Glaister and Shallit [14]. Due to the construction used in the proof of Theorem 2.3 in [17], this also gives a lower bound on the length of the regular expressions for Ln.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It can be readily seen that τ is injective, and it is both prefix-free and suffix-free, since all words in τ (E) are of the same length. The set τ (E) is just the set of binary palindromes of length 4n, and, by chance, a proof of the non-crossing property of this set is given already in [9], albeit in a different context. Thus, by Theorems 1 and 5, the set τ (W 2 n ) has alphabetic width at least 2 2 Ω(n) .…”
Section: Theoremmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since there are 2 n binary words of length n, the are 2 n 2 n−1 different subsets of {0, 1} n of size 2 n−1 , and thus P n contains 2 n 2 n−1 pairs, which clearly belongs to 2 2 (n) . Next we show that P n satisfies the conditions of (1) and (2) of the aforementioned result by Glaister and Shallit [1996].…”
Section: Computational Problems For Incomplete Automatamentioning
confidence: 66%
“…Normally large size bounds are easy to obtain for deterministic automata, while NFAs could be exponentially smaller. Here we use techniques from Glaister and Shallit [1996] to show that even the smallest NFAs capturing certain paths in the answer to an RPQ could be doubly exponential, matching the upper bound of Proposition 6.4. THEOREM 6.11.…”
Section: Computational Problems For Incomplete Automatamentioning
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation