Skip to main content
Log in

(Semi)alternating stack automata

  • Published:
Mathematical systems theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

New results concerning the space complexity of languages accepted by stack automata, alternating stack automata, and alternating pushdown automata are derived. Some of the results generalize previously known results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. Chandra, and L. Stockmeyer, Alternation,Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 98–108 (1976).

  2. S. Cook, Path systems and language recognition,Proceedings of the Second Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 70–72 (1970).

  3. S. Cook, Characterizations of pushdown machines in terms of time-bounded computers,Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 18, 4–18 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  4. S. Ginsburg, S. Greibach, and M. Harrison, Stack automata and compiling,Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 14, 172–201 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  5. E. Gurari and O. Ibarra, Path systems: constructions, solutions and applications,SIAM Journal on Computing, 9, 348–374 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Hopcroft and J. Ullman, Nonerasing stack automata,Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 1, 166–186 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Hopcroft and J. Ullman,Introduction to automata theory, languages and computation, Addison-Wesley (1979).

  8. O. Ibarra, Characterizations of some tape and time complexity classes of Turing machines in terms of multihead and auxiliary stack automata.Journal of Computer and System Sciences.5. 88–117 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. Kozen, On parallelism in Turing machines,Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 89–97 (1976).

  10. R. Ladner, R. Lipton and L. Stockmeyer. Alternating pushdown automata,Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 92–106 (1978).

  11. P. Lewis, R. Stearns and J. Hartmanis, Memory bounds for recognition of context-free and context-sensitive languages.Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Symposium on Switching Circuit Theory and Logical Design, 191–202 (1965).

  12. B. Monien, Relationships between pushdown automata and tape-bounded Turing machines.Proceedings of Symposium on Automata, Languages and Programming, 78-Rocquencourt, France (edited by N. Nivat), 575–583 (1972).

  13. W. Ruzzo, Tree-size bounded alternation,Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 352–359 (1979).

  14. W. Savitch, Relationship between nondeterministic and deterministic tape complexities,Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 4, 177–192 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Work supported by NSF Grant MCS79-09967.

Work supported by NSF Grant MCS78-01736.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gurari, E.M., Ibarra, O.H. (Semi)alternating stack automata. Math. Systems Theory 15, 211–224 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01786980

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01786980

Keywords

Navigation