1
$\begingroup$

Arden's Theorem: Let $P$ and $Q$ be regular expressions over $\sum$ such that $P$ does not contain the null string. Then, the equation $R = Q + RP$ has a unique solution $R = QP^*$.

Proof: Substitute $R$ by $Q + RP$ in the given equation.
We get $R = Q + (Q + RP) P = Q + QP + RP^2$.
Substitute $R$ again: $ R = Q + QP + (Q+RP)P^2 = Q + QP + QP^2 + RP^3$.

Continuing this substitution we get:
$ R = Q + QP + QP^2 + QP^3 + ... = Q (\epsilon + P+P^2+P^3 + ... ) = QP^*$.

Question: Is this proof correct? I know that the condition that $P$ does not contain $\epsilon$ is needed for the theorem to hold, but I do not see where the proof uses this fact.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ We discourage "please check whether my answer is correct" questions, as only "yes/no" answers are possible, which won't help you or future visitors. See here and here. Can you edit your post to ask about a specific conceptual issue you're uncertain about? As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem you happen to be working on. If you just need someone to check your work, you might seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. $\endgroup$
    – D.W.
    Commented Nov 4 at 2:36
  • $\begingroup$ Cross-posted: cs.stackexchange.com/q/170242/755, math.stackexchange.com/q/4993712/14578. Please do not post the same question on multiple sites. $\endgroup$
    – D.W.
    Commented Nov 4 at 2:36
  • $\begingroup$ I’m voting to close this question because it was cross-posted. $\endgroup$
    – D.W.
    Commented Nov 4 at 2:37

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

There is a problem with the "continuing this substitution" part.

You can't just write dots and assume that's a correct proof: when you write $$R = Q + QP + QP^2 + QP^3 + …$$

the dots can only represent a finite number of powers of $P$ and end with some $RP^{k+1}$, and this is not $QP^*$.

As an example, if $Q = \{a\}$, $P = \{\varepsilon, b\}$, then $R = ab^*+b^*$ is also a solution, and is different than $QP^* = ab^*$. This is because you can't prove that $R\subseteq QP^*$ if $\varepsilon \in P$ (though $QP^*\subseteq R$ even if $\varepsilon \in P$).

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, this infinite substitution was the part that I was doubting. In your last paragraph, as I understand, you are showing why $\epsilon \in P$ condition is needed in the theorem. I know that this is needed and so, it must be used in the proof. In my question I just said that I do not see if this condition was used anywhere, which is why I initially thought this proof might be incorrect. $\endgroup$
    – 36n
    Commented Nov 3 at 21:29

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.