[Submit a comment] [RTALooP home] [Index] [Previous] [Next] | [Postscript] [PDF] [BibTeX Source] [LaTeX Source] |
Originator: Hitoshi Ohsaki [OT02]
Date: July 2002
Summary: Are universality and inclusion of AC-recognizable languages decidable?
An AC-tree automaton as defined by [Ohs01] is given by a signature Σ, a set of AC-axioms (that is, associativity and commutativity) for some function symbols of Σ, and a set of rewrite rules R of the form
|
where the q’s and p’s are state symbols. Such an automaton accepts a term t iff it rewrites t modulo the given AC-axioms to some final state. L(A) denotes the language recognized by an AC-tree automaton A; a language L is called AC-recognizable iff L=L(A) for some AC-tree automaton A.
Are the following questions decidable?
It has been shown [OT02] that emptiness of AC-recognizable languages is decidable. Furthermore, as a consequence of the results of [ZL03], universality and inclusion are decidable if transition rules of the form f(q1,…,qn) → f(p1,…,pn) are not allowed (this is the sub-class of so-called regular AC tree-automata). However, both questions are still open in the general case.
The inclusion problem of AC-tree automata is undecidable [OTTR05]. Decidability of universality is still an open question.
[Submit a comment] [RTALooP home] [Index] [Previous] [Next] | [Postscript] [PDF] [BibTeX Source] [LaTeX Source] |