7
$\begingroup$

Given a set of laws for regular expressions, for example (ripped from this document):

$$ \begin{array}{llll} \text{1.} & (A|B)|C = A|(B|C) &\qquad& \text{(associativity of choice)}\\ \text{2.} & (AB)C = A(BC) && \text{(associativity of sequence)}\\ \text{3.} & A|B = B|A && \text{(commutativity of choice)}\\ \text{4.} & \phi|A = A|\phi = A && \text{(choice with empty language)}\\ \text{5.} & \epsilon A = A\epsilon = A && \text{(sequence with empty string)}\\ \text{6.} & \phi A = A \phi = \phi && \text{(sequence with empty language)}\\ \text{7.} & A(B|C) = AB|AC && \text{(left distributivity)}\\ \text{8.} & (A|B)C = AC|BC && \text{(right distributivity)}\\ \text{9.} & A|A = A && \text{(idempotency of choice)}\\ \text{10.} & (A^*)^* = A^* && \text{(repeated closure)}\\ \text{11.} & \phi^* = \epsilon && \text{(closure of empty language)}\\ \text{12.} & \epsilon^* = \epsilon && \text{(closure of empty string)}\\ \end{array}$$

Now, given any two regular expressions $A$ and $B$ which are equivalent (recognize precisely the same language), is there always a way to rewrite $A$ to $B$ by repeatedly applying these laws as rewriting rules? How would one approach proving that there are no equivalent regular expressions not reachable by rewriting from each other using these laws?

EDIT: As JiK points out, we also need at least $A(A^*) = (A^*)A$, and there might be other necessary rules missing. I guess this just demonstrates why a way to prove reachability between equivalent expressions seems necessary.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How about $A(A*)$ and $(A*)A$? where $A$ is a symbol? It seems to me that law 10 is the only one applicable to these, and you get nowhere with it. $\endgroup$ – JiK Sep 8 '15 at 9:07
6
$\begingroup$

This has been an open problem for some years until a negative answer was given independently by Redko [4] and Conway [1, pp. 105-118]): every complete system of identities for the regular expressions is necessarily infinite. Conway [1, pp. 116-119] conjectured a "good" complete system and this conjecture was ultimately proved by Krob [2, 3]. Interestingly, this system involves identities attached to finite groups.

On the positive side, Salomaa [5] proved that there exists a complete system composed of two identities and of an axiom scheme (which permits essentially to formally solve linear systems).

[1] J.H. Conway, Regular Algebras and Finite Machines (Chapman & Hall, London, 1974).

[2] D.Krob, A complete system of ${\scr B}$-rational identities. Automata, languages and programming (Coventry, 1990), 60--73, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., 443, Springer, New York, 1990.

[3] D.Krob, Complete systems of ${\scr B}$-rational identities. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 89 (1991), no. 2, 207--343.

[4] V.N. Redko, On the determining totality of an algebra of regular events, Ukrain. Mat. Z. 16 (1964), 120-126 (in Russian).

[5] A. Salomaa, Two complete axiom systems for the algebra of regular events. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 13 (1966), 158--169.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Just a side note: Redko's article is sometimes also referred to as On defining relations for the algebra of regular events in the literature. $\endgroup$ – StefanH Apr 29 '20 at 11:31
  • $\begingroup$ @StefanH I just reproduced the reference of the Math Reviews. $\endgroup$ – J.-E. Pin Apr 29 '20 at 11:35
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, maybe then it should be referred to that way. I just wanted to note that I have seen both variants. $\endgroup$ – StefanH Apr 29 '20 at 11:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.