Is the set of nonregular languages larger than the set of regular languages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brian44
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Regular Set
Click For Summary
The discussion explores whether the set of nonregular languages is larger than the set of regular languages, drawing parallels to the sizes of rational and irrational numbers. It is established that the set of finite automata, which recognize regular languages, is countable, implying that regular languages are also at most countable. In contrast, the set of all languages is uncountable since it can be viewed as the power set of the countable set of strings. The confusion arises from the distinction between finite strings and the broader concept of languages. Ultimately, the conclusion is that nonregular languages indeed form a larger set than regular languages.
brian44
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
I was wondering, since the size of complementary sets comes up often in other areas of math, e.g. the set of rational numbers is countably infinite but set of irrationals is uncountably infinite, so that the set of irrationals is in some sense "larger" than rationals.

Does a similar kind of relationship exist for the set of all regular languages and the set of all nonregular languages over any given alphabet (referring to theory of computation and finite automata)?

My feeling is that the set of nonregular languages should be larger in some sense, but I don't know if this is correct nor how to prove it, nor what types of classes the two sets belong to, since it seems possible they could both be uncountably infinite, but I believe there are degrees of size beyond uncountably infinite getting into transcendental numbering or something that I have not yet read about.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The set of finite automata is countable. The set of languages is not.
 
Thanks I see now how the first part is obvious:

Even if we don't fix the alphabet, the set of all finite automata is a countable union of at most countable sets and hence is at most countable. Therefore the set of regular languages, those that can be recognized by some finite automata, is at most countable.

But how do you prove the set of languages is uncountable? At first I thought to do it by saying:

The set of all languages is uncountable because we can construct an uncountable set of languages that is a subset of the set of all languages as follows.
The set of all strings over the alphabet {0,1,...,9} has the same cardinality as the set of all decimal expansions of the real numbers in [0,1]. If we take each string to define its own language, then the set of these languages is uncountable.
However I think this is incorrect because strings are defined to be finite sequences of symbols from the alphabet.
 
The set of strings is countable. The set of languages is the power set of the set of strings.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K