Why is this basic language not a regular language?












1












$begingroup$


L = {x in {0,1}* | x has an equal number of 0s & 1s}



Based on the recursive definition of regular languages, isn't it possible to form a single regular language set over the binary alphabet {0,1} by doing the following?




  1. concatenating 0's and 1's to form each of the binary strings satisfying the condition, resulting in a regular language consisting of that single string

  2. union all the single-string regular languages together into one single regular language






regular-languages







share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    There must be something wrong with your proof attempt, since it would apply to any language and there are surely some non-regular languages. The answers explain what.
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    10 hours ago


















1












$begingroup$


L = {x in {0,1}* | x has an equal number of 0s & 1s}



Based on the recursive definition of regular languages, isn't it possible to form a single regular language set over the binary alphabet {0,1} by doing the following?




  1. concatenating 0's and 1's to form each of the binary strings satisfying the condition, resulting in a regular language consisting of that single string

  2. union all the single-string regular languages together into one single regular language






regular-languages







share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    There must be something wrong with your proof attempt, since it would apply to any language and there are surely some non-regular languages. The answers explain what.
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    10 hours ago
















1












1








1





$begingroup$


L = {x in {0,1}* | x has an equal number of 0s & 1s}



Based on the recursive definition of regular languages, isn't it possible to form a single regular language set over the binary alphabet {0,1} by doing the following?




  1. concatenating 0's and 1's to form each of the binary strings satisfying the condition, resulting in a regular language consisting of that single string

  2. union all the single-string regular languages together into one single regular language






regular-languages







share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




L = {x in {0,1}* | x has an equal number of 0s & 1s}



Based on the recursive definition of regular languages, isn't it possible to form a single regular language set over the binary alphabet {0,1} by doing the following?




  1. concatenating 0's and 1's to form each of the binary strings satisfying the condition, resulting in a regular language consisting of that single string

  2. union all the single-string regular languages together into one single regular language






regular-languages




regular-languages






share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question






New contributor




Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 19 hours ago









ShukieShukie

61




61




New contributor




Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Shukie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    There must be something wrong with your proof attempt, since it would apply to any language and there are surely some non-regular languages. The answers explain what.
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    10 hours ago




















  • $begingroup$
    There must be something wrong with your proof attempt, since it would apply to any language and there are surely some non-regular languages. The answers explain what.
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    10 hours ago


















$begingroup$
There must be something wrong with your proof attempt, since it would apply to any language and there are surely some non-regular languages. The answers explain what.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
10 hours ago






$begingroup$
There must be something wrong with your proof attempt, since it would apply to any language and there are surely some non-regular languages. The answers explain what.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
10 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Every language is the union of regular languages:
$$
L = bigcup_{x in L} { x }.
$$
However, the set of regular languages is not closed under infinite unions. It isn't even closed under countably infinite unions, as your example demonstrates.



You can prove that your language is not regular in many ways. For example, if your language were regular, then so would its intersection with $0^*1^*$ be; yet this language is ${ 0^n 1^n : n geq 0 }$, the classical example of a non-regular language. You can also prove non-regularity of your language directly, using either the pumping lemma or Myhill–Nerode theory.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    You're on the right track! There's just one thing you're missing.



    The "build all the strings and union them together" approach works great—if you have a finite number of strings. There's a theorem that says "a union of finitely many regular languages is regular", but the key is the finitely many.



    In this case, there are infinitely many strings in the language, so the union-them-all trick no longer works.



    If you want to prove that the language is not regular (as opposed to just failing to prove that it is regular), try a fooling set proof:




    • Let $F$ be the language $1^*$. It's clearly infinite.

    • Let $x$ and $y$ be two distinct strings in $F$. These can be written as $1^i$ and $1^j$ with $i neq j$.

    • Now, let $z$ be $0^i$. From the definition of your language, we can see that $xz$ is in the language, but $yz$ is not.

    • Therefore, all the different strings in $F$ are distinguishable as prefixes. Since the language has infinitely many distinguishable prefixes, it cannot be regular.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "419"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Shukie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106556%2fwhy-is-this-basic-language-not-a-regular-language%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3












      $begingroup$

      Every language is the union of regular languages:
      $$
      L = bigcup_{x in L} { x }.
      $$
      However, the set of regular languages is not closed under infinite unions. It isn't even closed under countably infinite unions, as your example demonstrates.



      You can prove that your language is not regular in many ways. For example, if your language were regular, then so would its intersection with $0^*1^*$ be; yet this language is ${ 0^n 1^n : n geq 0 }$, the classical example of a non-regular language. You can also prove non-regularity of your language directly, using either the pumping lemma or Myhill–Nerode theory.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        3












        $begingroup$

        Every language is the union of regular languages:
        $$
        L = bigcup_{x in L} { x }.
        $$
        However, the set of regular languages is not closed under infinite unions. It isn't even closed under countably infinite unions, as your example demonstrates.



        You can prove that your language is not regular in many ways. For example, if your language were regular, then so would its intersection with $0^*1^*$ be; yet this language is ${ 0^n 1^n : n geq 0 }$, the classical example of a non-regular language. You can also prove non-regularity of your language directly, using either the pumping lemma or Myhill–Nerode theory.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          Every language is the union of regular languages:
          $$
          L = bigcup_{x in L} { x }.
          $$
          However, the set of regular languages is not closed under infinite unions. It isn't even closed under countably infinite unions, as your example demonstrates.



          You can prove that your language is not regular in many ways. For example, if your language were regular, then so would its intersection with $0^*1^*$ be; yet this language is ${ 0^n 1^n : n geq 0 }$, the classical example of a non-regular language. You can also prove non-regularity of your language directly, using either the pumping lemma or Myhill–Nerode theory.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Every language is the union of regular languages:
          $$
          L = bigcup_{x in L} { x }.
          $$
          However, the set of regular languages is not closed under infinite unions. It isn't even closed under countably infinite unions, as your example demonstrates.



          You can prove that your language is not regular in many ways. For example, if your language were regular, then so would its intersection with $0^*1^*$ be; yet this language is ${ 0^n 1^n : n geq 0 }$, the classical example of a non-regular language. You can also prove non-regularity of your language directly, using either the pumping lemma or Myhill–Nerode theory.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 18 hours ago









          Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus

          196k15184349




          196k15184349























              1












              $begingroup$

              You're on the right track! There's just one thing you're missing.



              The "build all the strings and union them together" approach works great—if you have a finite number of strings. There's a theorem that says "a union of finitely many regular languages is regular", but the key is the finitely many.



              In this case, there are infinitely many strings in the language, so the union-them-all trick no longer works.



              If you want to prove that the language is not regular (as opposed to just failing to prove that it is regular), try a fooling set proof:




              • Let $F$ be the language $1^*$. It's clearly infinite.

              • Let $x$ and $y$ be two distinct strings in $F$. These can be written as $1^i$ and $1^j$ with $i neq j$.

              • Now, let $z$ be $0^i$. From the definition of your language, we can see that $xz$ is in the language, but $yz$ is not.

              • Therefore, all the different strings in $F$ are distinguishable as prefixes. Since the language has infinitely many distinguishable prefixes, it cannot be regular.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                You're on the right track! There's just one thing you're missing.



                The "build all the strings and union them together" approach works great—if you have a finite number of strings. There's a theorem that says "a union of finitely many regular languages is regular", but the key is the finitely many.



                In this case, there are infinitely many strings in the language, so the union-them-all trick no longer works.



                If you want to prove that the language is not regular (as opposed to just failing to prove that it is regular), try a fooling set proof:




                • Let $F$ be the language $1^*$. It's clearly infinite.

                • Let $x$ and $y$ be two distinct strings in $F$. These can be written as $1^i$ and $1^j$ with $i neq j$.

                • Now, let $z$ be $0^i$. From the definition of your language, we can see that $xz$ is in the language, but $yz$ is not.

                • Therefore, all the different strings in $F$ are distinguishable as prefixes. Since the language has infinitely many distinguishable prefixes, it cannot be regular.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  You're on the right track! There's just one thing you're missing.



                  The "build all the strings and union them together" approach works great—if you have a finite number of strings. There's a theorem that says "a union of finitely many regular languages is regular", but the key is the finitely many.



                  In this case, there are infinitely many strings in the language, so the union-them-all trick no longer works.



                  If you want to prove that the language is not regular (as opposed to just failing to prove that it is regular), try a fooling set proof:




                  • Let $F$ be the language $1^*$. It's clearly infinite.

                  • Let $x$ and $y$ be two distinct strings in $F$. These can be written as $1^i$ and $1^j$ with $i neq j$.

                  • Now, let $z$ be $0^i$. From the definition of your language, we can see that $xz$ is in the language, but $yz$ is not.

                  • Therefore, all the different strings in $F$ are distinguishable as prefixes. Since the language has infinitely many distinguishable prefixes, it cannot be regular.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  You're on the right track! There's just one thing you're missing.



                  The "build all the strings and union them together" approach works great—if you have a finite number of strings. There's a theorem that says "a union of finitely many regular languages is regular", but the key is the finitely many.



                  In this case, there are infinitely many strings in the language, so the union-them-all trick no longer works.



                  If you want to prove that the language is not regular (as opposed to just failing to prove that it is regular), try a fooling set proof:




                  • Let $F$ be the language $1^*$. It's clearly infinite.

                  • Let $x$ and $y$ be two distinct strings in $F$. These can be written as $1^i$ and $1^j$ with $i neq j$.

                  • Now, let $z$ be $0^i$. From the definition of your language, we can see that $xz$ is in the language, but $yz$ is not.

                  • Therefore, all the different strings in $F$ are distinguishable as prefixes. Since the language has infinitely many distinguishable prefixes, it cannot be regular.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 14 hours ago









                  DraconisDraconis

                  5,762921




                  5,762921






















                      Shukie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Shukie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Shukie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Shukie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Computer Science Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106556%2fwhy-is-this-basic-language-not-a-regular-language%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

                      Image
                      .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75 ...
                      Read more

                      Berlina muro

                      Image
                      La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l...
                      Read more

                      Berlina aerponto

                      Image
                      Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa...
                      Read more