1 / 16

The Family of L anguages Generated by No n -co o perative Membrane Systems

The Family of L anguages Generated by No n -co o perative Membrane Systems. Hiroshima University Higashi-Hiroshima , Japan. Chi ş in ă u , Moldova. Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science Academy of Sciences of Moldova. Technical University of Moldova. Artiom Alhazov

kerryn
Download Presentation

The Family of L anguages Generated by No n -co o perative Membrane Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Family of Languages Generatedby Non-cooperative MembraneSystems Hiroshima University Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan Chişinău, Moldova Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science Academy of Sciences of Moldova Technical University of Moldova Artiom Alhazov Constantin Ciubotaru Yurii Rogozhin Sergiu Ivanov {artiom,chebotar,rogozhin,sivanov}@math.md One-line summary:LOP*(ncoo,tar,n,n,nPri)=? (with target indications without dissolution, priorities or other ingredients)

  2. LOP*(ncoo,tar) • We call it TheMembrane Systems Language Family • Is the family of languages generated by transitional P systems without cooperation • Easy: LOP*(ncoo,tar) = LOP1(ncoo,out) • technique of flattening the membrane structure • Arbitary P system from OP1(ncoo,out) • =(O,=[1]1,w1,R1,i0=0) • the components of the tuple are alphabet, membrane structure, starting multiset, rules and output region • Rules are of the form auoutv, aO, u,vO*

  3. Computation: ncoo and result: L • Maximal parallelism becomes total parallelism • All objects in region 1 evolve • (unless there is no rule to rewrite them, • but such useless objects do not contribute to the result, • so we assume the system has no useless objects) • Result: the concatenation of objects sent out, in the order in which they are sent out • Sent out in the same step: taken in arbitrary order

  4. ⇒ bcc a a bcc bcc ⇒ bcc bcc a  bcc ⇒ bcc bcc bcc a bcc . bcc bcc bcc  Example 1 • =({a,b,c},[1]1,aa,{a,aa(bcc)out},0) • L()=(Perm(bccbcc))*(Perm(bcc))* Result of this computation: Perm(bccbcc)  Perm(bcc)  Perm(bcc) .= a a ={bbcccc,bcbccc,bccbcc,bcccbc,bccccb,cbbccc,cbcbcc,cbccbc,cbcccb,ccbbcc,ccbcbc,ccbccb,cccbbc,cccbcb,ccccbb}{bcc,cbc,ccb}{bcc,cbc,ccb}

  5. CF grammars. Time yield • The illustration of Example 1 suggests that evolutions of non-cooperative membrane systems are “like” derivation trees of context-free grammars. • We define the time yield of a derivation tree as concatenation of permutations of terminal symbols at every depth: • Lt()=Perm(yield0())  Perm(yield1()) …  Perm(yieldheight()()) • Time yield of a grammar: union of time yields of its derivation trees. • Terminals collected top-down, not left-to-right

  6. Example 2 • G=({S,A,B,C},{a,b,c},S,P) • P={SSABC,SABC,AA,BB,CC,Aa,Bb,Cc} • Lt(G)={w{a,b,c}*: |w|a=|w|b=|w|c>0} • Lt(CF) \ CF   S Time yield: S A B C S A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A b C A b C A B c Perm(bbc) A c A c A bPerm(ccb) aaaPerm(aaa)

  7. Results Representation via grammars Comparison to Chomsky families Closure properties A more difficult example Stay tuned

  8. LOP(ncoo,tar) via derivation trees • We proved that Lt(CF)=LOP(ncoo,tar) • inside~non-terminals, outside~terminals • extra step to produce the axiom • 1NF: • the axiom is never produced • other symbols are never erased • BinaryNF: 1NF and |right side|2 • 3NF: BinaryNF and • all non-terminals are reachable • all non-terminals are productive unless the axiom is not.

  9. Position in Chomsky Hierarchy • LOP(ncoo,tar) REG • Simulate a complete FA; erase final states • LOP(ncoo,tar) CS • LBA simulates total parallelism for 1NF • LOP(ncoo,tar) \ CF  (Example 2) • LIN \ LOP(ncoo,tar)  • Example 3: {anbn|n1}LOP(ncoo,tar) • technical proof using special definitions • TheMembrane Systems Language Family contains REG, is incomparable with LIN and CF, and is contained in CS.

  10. Closure properties - I • LOP(ncoo,tar) is closed under permutations • Idle productions scramble the order • LOP(ncoo,tar) contains REGPerm(REG) • Take regular construction for R1R2 • Permutation closure technique for R2 • Example 4: m,n1(abc)m Perm(dnenfn) LOP(ncoo,tar)

  11. Closure properties - II • LOP(ncoo,tar) is closed under erasing/renaming morphisms • Open problem for morphisms that can lengthen • Difficult if many symbols are produced in the same step • LOP(ncoo,tar) is closed under union • Non-deterministic choice between axioms • Example 3’: {anbncn|n1}LOP(ncoo,tar) • Erasing all c’s: contradiction with Example 3 • LOP(ncoo,tar) is not closed under intersection • Intersect Example 2 with regular a*b*c* • Contradiction with Example 4 • LOP(ncoo,tar) is not closed under complement • Intersection is a complement of union of complements

  12. Closure properties - III • Example 5:L=m,n1Perm(ambm) cnLOP(ncoo,tar) • technical proof using special definitions • LOP(ncoo,tar) is not closed under concatenation • LPerm(REG)REG( LOP(ncoo,tar) )2 • LOP(ncoo,tar) is not closed under taking the mirror image • LPerm(REG)REG( LOP(ncoo,tar) )R

  13. aabbcc ⇒ D’D’D’D’ aabbcc c’b’a’c’b’a’c’b’a’c’b’a abccbaabccba c’c’c’c’c’c’c’b’b’b’b’b’b’b’a’a’a’a’a’a’a’a’b’c’ aabbcc c’b’a’c’b’a’c’b’a’c’b’a aabbcc c’b’a’c’b’a’c’b’a’c’b’a abccbaabccba ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ DDDDDD DDDDDDDD DD D’D’D’D’ ⇒ aabbccc’b’a’c’b’a’c’b’a’c’b’aabccbaabccbac’c’c’c’c’c’c’b’b’b’b’b’b’b’a’a’a’a’a’a’a’a’b’c’ A more difficult example • =({D,D′,a,b,c,a′,b′,c′},[1 ]1,DD,R), • R={D→(abc)outD′D′,D→(abc)out, • D′→(a′b′c′)outDD,D′→(a′b′c′)out}. • LD=L()={ Perm((abc)2k0)Perm((a′b′c′)2k1)··· • Perm((abc)2k2t)Perm((a′b′c′)2k2t+1) |k0=1,0≤ki≤2ki−1,1≤i≤2t+1,t≥0}. • Two kinds of non-context-freeness • permutations and counting.

  14. Summary of Results • The family generated by transitional non-cooperative systems (without additional control) is reconsidered • Very simple definition. Fundamental in membrane computing? • Characterized via CFG derivation trees • Three normal forms • Compared to Chomsky families • Some closure properties are established • An example of a difficult language is given

  15. Open questions • Is LOP(ncoo,tar) contained in MAT? • Is LOP(ncoo,tar) contained in ET0L? • Is LOP(ncoo,tar) closed under morphisms? • Can LOP(ncoo,tar) be recognized in polynomial time? • Sharpen the lower bound of REGPerm(REG) • Sharpen the upper bound of semilinear CS

  16. Thank you • Reminder of the example illustrating the model • =({a,b,c},[1]1,aa,{a,aa(bcc)out},0) a a   bcc a a bcc bcc  bcc bcc a  bcc  bcc bcc bcc a bcc . bcc bcc bcc  Result of this computation: Perm(bccbcc)Perm(bcc)Perm(bcc). foryour questions

More Related