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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter brian44
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Regular Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the set of regular languages and the set of nonregular languages within the context of the theory of computation and finite automata. Participants explore whether the set of nonregular languages is "larger" than the set of regular languages, considering concepts of countability and cardinality.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the set of nonregular languages might be larger than the set of regular languages, drawing an analogy to the relationship between rational and irrational numbers.
  • Another participant states that the set of finite automata is countable, implying that the set of regular languages is also at most countable.
  • A participant acknowledges the countability of finite automata and regular languages but questions how to demonstrate that the set of all languages is uncountable, proposing a method involving the cardinality of strings and their relation to real numbers.
  • Another participant clarifies that the set of languages is the power set of the set of strings, which suggests that the set of languages is uncountable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the countability of finite automata and regular languages, but there is disagreement and uncertainty regarding the uncountability of the set of all languages and the implications for the size comparison between regular and nonregular languages.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of languages and strings, as well as the implications of cardinality in this context. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the proof of uncountability for the set of 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.
 
Physics 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K