Journal/Paper.thy
changeset 252 8e2c497d699e
parent 251 821ff177a478
child 253 bcef7669f55a
equal deleted inserted replaced
251:821ff177a478 252:8e2c497d699e
  2295   \begin{lmm}
  2295   \begin{lmm}
  2296   No two distinct strings in set @{text "B"} are Myhill-Nerode related by language @{text A}.
  2296   No two distinct strings in set @{text "B"} are Myhill-Nerode related by language @{text A}.
  2297   \end{lmm} 
  2297   \end{lmm} 
  2298 
  2298 
  2299   \begin{proof}
  2299   \begin{proof}
  2300   After unfolding the definitions, we need to establish that for @{term "i \<noteq> j"},
  2300   After unfolding the definition of @{text "B"}, we need to establish that given @{term "i \<noteq> j"},
  2301   the equality \mbox{@{text "a\<^sup>i @ b\<^sup>j = a\<^sup>n @ b\<^sup>n"}} leads to a contradiction. This is clearly the case
  2301   the strings @{text "a\<^sup>i"} and @{text "a\<^sup>j"} are not Myhill-Nerode related by @{text "A"}.
  2302   if we test that the two strings have the same amount of @{text a}'s and @{text b}'s;
  2302   That means we have to show that \mbox{@{text "\<forall>z. a\<^sup>i @ z \<in> A = a\<^sup>j @ z \<in> A"}} leads to 
  2303   the string on the right-hand side satisfies this property, but not the one on
  2303   a contradiction. Let us take @{text "b\<^sup>i"} for @{text "z"}. Then we know @{text "a\<^sup>i @ b\<^sup>i \<in> A"}.
  2304   the left-hand side. Therefore the strings cannot be equal and we have a contradiction.
  2304   But since @{term "i \<noteq> j"}, @{text "a\<^sup>j @ b\<^sup>i \<notin> A"}. Therefore  @{text "a\<^sup>i"} and @{text "a\<^sup>j"}
       
  2305   cannot be Myhill-Nerode related by @{text "A"} and we are done.
  2305   \end{proof}
  2306   \end{proof}
  2306 
  2307 
  2307   \noindent
  2308   \noindent
  2308   To conclude the proof on non-regularity of language @{text A}, the
  2309   To conclude the proof of non-regularity for the language @{text A}, the
  2309   Continuation Lemma and the lemma above lead to a contradiction assuming
  2310   Continuation Lemma and the lemma above lead to a contradiction assuming
  2310   @{text A} is regular. Therefore the language @{text A} is not regular, as we
  2311   @{text A} is regular. Therefore the language @{text A} is not regular, as we
  2311   wanted to show.
  2312   wanted to show.
  2312 *}
  2313 *}
  2313 
  2314