# union of two equivalence classes (Myhill–Nerode theorem) [closed]

Let a language, $L$ such that the equivalence relation, as defined in Myhill–Nerode theorem has $4$ equivalence classes; $A_1, \ldots, A_4$.

Let $S = A_1 \cup A_2$.

1. Is $S$ always regular?
2. How many equivalence classes does the relation $\sim S$ creates?
1. I think we may construct two DFA's, $D_1, D_2$ which accept $A_1, A_2$, respectively. Let $D$ to be the DFA accepting $L$. We construct $D_1$ by copying the states of $D$. We choose arbitrary $w\in A_1$ and run it on $D$. We mark as accepting state only the state which accepted the $w$. Same applied for $D_2$. Finally, we unite $D_1$ and $D_2$ be connecting a new starting state and two $\varepsilon$ arrows to each DFA. So we constructed in that way an NFA and therefore $S$ is a regular language. Is this construction legal?
2. My thought is $3$ because every word can be either at $S, A_3, A_4$. Am I right?

## closed as unclear what you're asking by D.W.♦, David Richerby, Juho, Luke Mathieson, lPlantMay 25 '15 at 3:33

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• Are you aware of the relation between the Myhill-Nerode classes and the minimal DFA? How is the relation $\sim S$ defined? I am not sure I understand what you mean. – babou May 20 '15 at 17:30
The construction is legal, but it isn't guaranteed to recognize $S=A_1\cup A_2$. The problem is that $D_1$ and $D_2$ don't necessarily recognize $A_1$ and $A_2$. But they recognize them if $D$ is the minimal DFA recognizing $L$. But you are making your live unnecessary complicated anyway. You could just mark the states corresponding to $A_1$ and $A_2$ as the accepting states, and you have your DFA recognizing $S=A_1\cup A_2$.
My thought is 3 because every word can be either at $S$, $A_3$, $A_4$. Am I right?
No, at least this argument is not convincing. The DFA constructed above still has 4 states, so we only know that it cannot be more than 4. We also know that it must be more than one, which leaves 2, 3, and 4 as possible answers. My own guess would be actually 4, but I assume here that $A_1$ and $A_2$ are just two arbitrary equivalence classes, i.e. that the indices have no significance.