Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the exercise of determining the equivalence classes for the language L={l ε {a,b}*: the word l does not contain the subword bba}, and finding the smallest deterministic automaton that recognizes this language. The scope includes theoretical aspects of regular languages, automata construction, and the application of the Myhill–Nerode theorem.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Technical explanation
- Debate/contested
- Mathematical reasoning
Main Points Raised
- Some participants suggest that understanding the Myhill–Nerode theorem may aid in building the automaton for the language.
- One equivalence class is proposed to consist of words that contain the subword bba, which raises questions about the definition of equivalence classes in relation to the language L.
- Participants discuss that the equivalence relation is defined on the set of all strings {a, b}*, not just those in L, leading to the conclusion that words not in L can still form equivalence classes.
- There is a suggestion to build an automaton to naturally associate equivalence classes with its states, particularly noting that certain states should represent the presence of bba.
- Some participants express uncertainty about how to find the equivalence classes and whether they should consider all words generated by the automaton.
- Clarifications are provided that equivalence classes consist of words that lead the automaton to the same state, regardless of their acceptance in the language.
- There is a discussion about whether building an automaton is the only method to find equivalence classes, with references to the relationship between classes and the structure of the automaton.
- One participant confirms that the equivalence classes can include words containing a, b, bb, and bba.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the nature of equivalence classes and the role of the Myhill–Nerode theorem. While some agree on the relationship between the automaton and equivalence classes, others seek further clarification on specific aspects of the definitions and implications.
Contextual Notes
There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the equivalence classes and the definitions of the automaton states. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps necessary to fully understand the construction of the automaton or the equivalence classes.
Who May Find This Useful
Readers interested in formal language theory, automata theory, and the Myhill–Nerode theorem may find this discussion relevant and informative.