Skip to main content
Log in

One-way multihead finite automata and 2-bounded languages

  • Published:
Mathematical systems theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

LanguagesL n ={1x2ix:i, x ∈ ℕ, 1≤in} were used to show that, for eachk, one-way non-sensing deterministic finite automata (1-MFA) withk+1 heads are more powerful than such automata withk heads, even if we consider only 2-bounded languages (Chrobak). Fork ∈ ℕ letf(k) be the maximal numbern such that languageL n can be recognized by a 1-MFA withk heads. We present a precise inductive formula forf(k). It may be shown that, fork≥3,

$$\frac{{(2k - 5)! \cdot (k - 2) \cdot (k - 1)}}{{2^{k - 3} }} \leqslant f(k) \leqslant \frac{{(2k - 5)! \cdot (k - 2) \cdot (k - 1) \cdot 3k^2 }}{{2^{k - 3} }}$$

that is,f(k)≈k 2k. The proof is constructive in the sense that it shows how to construct ak-head automaton recognizingL f(k) . This is a solution of the problem stated by Chrobak.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chrobak, M., Hierarchies of one-way multihead finite languages, in:Proc. ICALP'85, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 194, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985, pp. 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chrobak, M., Hierarchies of one-way multihead automata languages,Theoretical Computer Science,48 (1986), pp. 153–181 (a full version of [1]).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chrobak, M., and Li, M.,k+1 heads are better thank for PDAs,Journal of Computer and System Sciences,37 (1988), pp. 144–155.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chrobak, M., and Rytter, W., Remarks on string-matching and one-way multihead automata,Information Processing Letters,24 (1987), pp. 325–329.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Galil, Z., Open problems in stringology, in:Combinatorial Algorithms on Words (A. Apostolico and Z. Galil, eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1974, pp. 350–359.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ibarra, O. H., and Kim, C. E., On 3-head versus 2-head finite automata,Acta Informatica,4 (1975), pp. 173–200.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kutyłowski, M., One-way multihead finite automata,Theoretical Computer Science, to appear.

  8. Kutyłowski, M., One-Way Multihead Finite Automata and 2-Bounded Languages, Technical Report, Institut für Theoretische Informatik, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, March 1989 (a revised version) (an extended version of this paper).

  9. Piatkowski, T. F.,N-head Finite-State Machines, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1963.

  10. Rosenberg, A. L.,Nonwriting Extensions of Finite Automata, Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1965.

  11. Rosenberg, A. L., On multihead finite automata,IBM Journal of Research and Development,10 (1966), pp. 388–394.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yao, A. C., and Rivest, R. L.,K+1 heads are better thanK, Journal of Association for Computing Machinery,25 (1978), pp. 337–340.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This research was made during author's stay at the Institut für Theoretische Informatik, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, West Germany, and was sponsored by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation from Bonn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kutyłowski, M. One-way multihead finite automata and 2-bounded languages. Math. Systems Theory 23, 107–139 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02090769

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02090769

Keywords

Navigation