15-453

FORMAL LANGUAGES,
AUTOMATA AND
COMPUTABILITY
MINIMIZING DFAs
THURSDAY Jan 24
IS THIS MINIMAL?
NO
0

1
1 1 0
1 0

0
IS THIS MINIMAL?

0
1

0
 THEOREM
For every regular language L, there exists
a UNIQUE (up to re-labeling of the states)
minimal DFA M such that L = L(M)
NOT TRUE FOR NFAs
0

0
 EXTENDING 
Given DFA M = (Q, Σ, , q0, F) extend  to
^ : Q  Σ* → Q as follows:
^ ε) = q
(q,
^ ) = (q, )
(q,
^
^  … ) = ( (q,
(q, 1 k+1 1 …k ), k+1 )
^ , w)  F  M accepts w
Note: (q0

String w  Σ* distinguishes states q1 and q2 iff

^ ^
(q , w)  F  (q , w)  F
1 2
 EXTENDING 
Given DFA M = (Q, Σ, , q0, F) extend  to
^ : Q  Σ* → Q as follows:
^ ε) = q
(q,
^ ) = (q, )
(q,
^
^  … ) = ( (q,
(q, 1 k+1 1 …k ), k+1 )
^ , w)  F  M accepts w
Note: (q0

String w  Σ* distinguishes states q1 and q2 iff

^ ^
exactly ONE of (q1, w), (q2, w) is a final state
 Fix M = (Q, Σ, , q0, F) and let p, q  Q
DEFINITION:
p is distinguishable from q
iff
there is a w  Σ* that distinguishes p and q

p is indistinguishable from q
iff
p is not distinguishable from q
iff
^
for all w  Σ*, (p, w)  F  ^(q, w)  F
 q1 1
0
0,1
1
q0 q2

0 0

1
q3

ε distinguishes accept from non-accept states

 Fix M = (Q, Σ, , q0, F) and let p, q, r  Q

Define relation ~ :
p ~ q iff p is indistinguishable from q
p ~/ q iff p is distinguishable from q

Proposition: ~ is an equivalence relation

p ~ p (reflexive)
p ~ q  q ~ p (symmetric)
p ~ q and q ~ r  p ~ r (transitive)
Proof (of transitivity): for all w, we have:
^(p, w)  F  ^(q, w)  F  ^(r, w)  F
 Fix M = (Q, Σ, , q0, F) and let p, q, r  Q

so ~ partitions the set of states of M into

disjoint equivalence classes
Proposition: ~ is an equivalence relation
[q] = { p | p ~ q }
Q
q
q0
 0

1
1 1 0
1 0

0
 Algorithm MINIMIZE
Input: DFA M
Output: DFA MMIN such that:
MMMIN (that is, L(M) = L(MMIN))
MMIN has no inaccessible states
MMIN is irreducible
||
all states of MMIN are pairwise distinguishable

Theorem: MMIN is the unique minimum DFA

 Intuition: States of MMIN will be
blocks of equivalent states of M

We’ll find these equivalent states with

a “Table-Filling” Algorithm
 TABLE-FILLING ALGORITHM
Input: DFA M = (Q, Σ, , q0, F)
Output: (1) DM = { (p,q) | p,q  Q and p ~/ q }
(2) EM = { [q] | q  Q }

IDEA:
• We know how to find those pairs of
states that ε distinguishes…
• Use this and recursion to find those
pairs distinguishable with longer strings
• Pairs left over will be indistinguishable
 TABLE-FILLING ALGORITHM
Input: DFA M = (Q, Σ, , q0, F)
Output: (1) DM = { (p,q) | p,q  Q and p ~/ q }
(2) EM = { [q] | q  Q }
q0
q1 Base Case: p accepts
and q rejects  p ~/ q

qi

qn
q0 q1 qi qn
 TABLE-FILLING ALGORITHM
Input: DFA M = (Q, Σ, , q0, F)
Output: (1) DM = { (p,q) | p,q  Q and p ~/ q }
(2) EM = { [q] | q  Q }
q0
q1 Base Case: p accepts
and q rejects  p ~/ q
Recursion: if there is σ  Σ
qi D D and states p, q satisfying
 (p, ) = p
qn D ~/  p ~/ q
q0 q1 qi qn  (q, ) = q
Repeat until no more new D’s
q0

q1 D

q2 D D
q3 D D D
q0 q1 q2 q3
0,1
1 0

0 0 1
q0 q1 q2 q3
1
 0
q0 q1

1
1 1 0
1 0
q0
q3 q2
q1 D 0

q2 D

q3 D D
q0 q1 q2 q3
 Claim: If p, q are distinguished by Table-
Filling algorithm, then p ~/ q
Proof: By induction on the length of the string
distinguishing them.
If (p, q) is marked D at the start, then one’s in
F and one isn’t, so ε distinguishes p and q
Suppose (p, q) is marked D at a later point.
Then there are states p, q, and string w such that:
1. (p, q) are marked D  p ~ / q (by induction)
 (p,
^ w)  F and ^(q, w)  F
2. p = (p,) and q = (q,), where   Σ
The string w distinguishes p and q!
Claim: If p, q are not distinguished by Table-
Filling algorithm, then p ~ q
Proof (by contradiction):
Suppose the pair (p, q) is not marked D by the
/ q (a “bad pair”)
algorithm, yet p ~
Then there is a string w such that:
^ w)  F and (q,
(p, ^ w)  F (Why is |w| >0 ?)

So, w
Of all such bad= w, let p, q 
where
pairs, beΣa pair with
the p = (p,)wand q = (q,)
Let shortest
Then (p, q) is also a bad pair,
but with a SHORTER w !
Algorithm MINIMIZE
Input: DFA M
Output: DFA MMIN
(1) Remove all inaccessible states from M
(2) Apply Table-Filling algorithm to get:
EM = { [q] | q is an accessible state of M }

Define: MMIN = (QMIN, Σ, MIN, q0 MIN, FMIN)

QMIN = EM, q0 MIN = [q0], FMIN = { [q] | q  F }

MIN( [q],  ) = [ ( q,  ) ]
Must show MIN is well defined!
Algorithm MINIMIZE
Input: DFA M
Output: DFA MMIN
(1) Remove all inaccessible states from M
(2) Apply Table-Filling algorithm to get:
EM = { [q] | q is an accessible state of M }

Define: MMIN = (QMIN, Σ, MIN, q0 MIN, FMIN)

QMIN = EM, q0 MIN = [q0], FMIN = { [q] | q  F }

MIN( [q],  ) = [ ( q,  ) ]
Claim: MMIN  M
 MINIMIZE
0
q0 q1 0

1
0 1 0
1

q2
0

1
1
 1 0 0,1
0
q0 q1 q4
1 1

0,1 0 0 q5
q0

q1 q2 1
D q3
q3 D D
q4 D D
q5 D D D D
q0 q1 q3 q4 q5
 1 0 0,1
0
q0 q1 q4
1 1

0 0 q5
q0

q1 D q3
q3 D D
q4 D D
q5 D D D D
q0 q1 q3 q4 q5
*MMIN is the unique minimal DFA equivalent to M
Claim: Suppose MMMIN, and M has no
inaccessible states and is irreducible. Then
there is a bijection that preserves transitions
between M and MMIN
 *MMIN is the unique minimal DFA equivalent to M
Claim: Suppose MMMIN, and M has no
inaccessible states and is irreducible. Then
there is a bijection that preserves transitions
between M and MMIN

Note: If M is minimal, then M has no inaccessible states and

is irreducible. (So the Claim implies *)
Corollary to the Claim: If M has no inaccessible states and is
irreducible, then M is minimal.
Proof: Let Mmin  M be minimal. Then Mmin  MMIN
So, by Claim, both Mmin and M are isomorphic to MMIN

NOT TRUE for NFAs !

*MMIN is the unique minimal DFA equivalent to M
Claim: Suppose MMMIN, and M has no
inaccessible states and is irreducible. Then
there is a bijection that preserves transitions
between M and MMIN
Proof: We construct a map from MMIN to M
recursively
Base Case: q0 MIN → q0
Recursive Step: If p → p
  Then q → q
q q
We need to prove:
That is, for
The map is all q  Meverywhere
defined MIN
there
Base a q q M such
isCase: → q that
 q → q
The map is well defined
0 MIN 0
If
Theq map
MMINis, there
Recursive isIfapstring
a bijection
Step: → p w such that
^MIN(q0 MIN,w) = q
  Then q → q
^
Let q = (q 0,w). q willq map q to q
 Base Case: q0 MIN → q0
Recursive Step: If p → p
  Then q → q
q q
The map is well defined
Suppose there exist q and q such that
q → q and q → q
We show that q and q are indistinguishable,
so it must be that q = q
 Suppose there exist q and q such that
q → q and q → q

Suppose q and q are distinguishable

MMIN M
Accept

Accept
u w u w
q0 MIN q q0 q
Contradiction!
v w v w

Reject
Reject

q0 MIN q q0 q

 Base Case: q0 MIN → q0
Recursive Step: If p → p
  Then q → q
q q
The map is onto
For all q  M there is a q  MMIN
such that q → q
If q  M, there is w such that
^
(q0,w) = q

Let q = ^MIN(q0 MIN,w)

 The map is 1-1
Suppose there are distinct p and q such that
p → q and q → q
Suppose p and q are distinguishable

MMIN M
Accept

Accept
u w u w
q0 MIN p q0 q
Contradiction!
v w v w

Reject
Reject

q0 MIN q q0 q
How can we prove that two
regular expressions are
equivalent?
WWW.FLAC.WS
Finish reviewing Chapter 1 of the book and
read 2.1 & 2.2 for next time