2015
DOI: 10.3233/fi-2015-1278
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Two-way Automata and Regular Languages of Overlapping Tiles

Abstract: We consider classes of languages of overlapping tiles, i.e., subsets of the McAlister monoid: the class REG of languages definable by Kleene's regular expressions, the class MSO of languages definable by formulas of monadic second-order logic, and the class REC of languages definable by morphisms into finite monoids. By extending the semantics of finite-state two-way automata (possibly with pebbles) from languages of words to languages of tiles, we obtain a complete characterization of the classes REG and MSO.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

4
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It can easily be shown that it is closed under (non-zero) product, and, although the argument presented in [31,13] no longer holds, it can also be shown that it is closed under iterated product (Kleene star).…”
Section: Proof (⇒)mentioning
confidence: 93%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…It can easily be shown that it is closed under (non-zero) product, and, although the argument presented in [31,13] no longer holds, it can also be shown that it is closed under iterated product (Kleene star).…”
Section: Proof (⇒)mentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Generalizing the case of languages of birooted words presented in [31,13], the class of MSO definable languages is clearly closed under inverses and left and right projections. It can easily be shown that it is closed under (non-zero) product, and, although the argument presented in [31,13] no longer holds, it can also be shown that it is closed under iterated product (Kleene star).…”
Section: Proof (⇒)mentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The walking automata defined here are walking automata with unmarked and invisible pebbles in the sense of [6]. However, generalizing Pécuchet's study of two-way automata on strings [18] (see also [11,5]), we do not require that accepting runs starts and ends in the same vertex of the input structures. Moreover, our definition also differs from the definition proposed in [6,1] in the sense that, a priori, the absence of edges cannot be detected by the automata and the walking automaton is not required to traverse the entire structure.…”
Section: Remark 11mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The more classical notion of accepting runs defined by complete traversals of the input structure can be related with ours as follows. In particular, when the birooted structures cannot be related by morphisms (as with end markers in two-way word automata [5]), studying strict recognizability just amounts to study recognizability.…”
Section: Then We Havementioning
confidence: 99%