Quantum Büchi Automata
Abstract
Quantum finite automata (QFAs) have been extensively studied in the literature. In this paper, we define and systematically study quantum Büchi automata (QBAs) over infinite words to model the long-term behavior of quantum systems, which extend QFAs. We introduce the classes of -languages recognized by QBAs in probable, almost sure, strict and non-strict threshold semantics. Several pumping lemmas and closure properties for QBAs are proved. Some decision problems for QBAs are investigated. In particular, we show that there are surprisingly only at most four substantially different classes of -languages recognized by QBAs (out of uncountably infinite). The relationship between classical -languages and QBAs is clarified using our pumping lemmas. We also find an -language recognized by QBAs under the almost sure semantics, which is not -context-free.
Keywords: quantum computing, quantum finite automata, Büchi automata, -languages, pumping lemmas, closure properties, decision problems.
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Preliminaries
- 3 Definition of Quantum Büchi Automata
- 4 Basic Properties of Quantum Büchi Automata
- 5 Pumping Lemmas
- 6 Relationship between Different Semantics
- 7 Relationship with Classical -Languages
- 8 Closure Properties
- 9 Decision Problems
- 10 Conclusion and Discussions
- Acknowledgements
- A Proofs for Basic Properties of QBAs
- B Pumping Lemmas for QBAs
- C Non-Inclusion Relations of QBAs
- D Pumping Lemma for -Context-Free Languages
- E Expressiveness of QBA beyond Classical
- F Proof of Theorem 8.1
- G Supplementary Proof of Theorem 8.2
1 Introduction
As acceptors for infinite words (i.e., -words), Büchi automata [1] are widely applied in model-checking, program analysis and verification, reasoning about infinite games and decision problems for various logics. Many variants of Büchi automata have been defined in the literature, with acceptance conditions different from the original one in [1], e.g., Muller, Rabin and Street conditions (cf. [2]). More recently, probabilistic generalizations of Büchi automata and other -automata have been systematically studied in [3, 4].
In quantum computing, quantum automata over finite words were introduced more than 20 years ago and have been extensively studied since then; see for example [5, 6, 7, 8]. But quantum automata over infinite words have only very briefly been considered in the literature. The Büchi, Street and Rabin acceptance conditions for quantum automata were defined in [9, 10]. The only result obtained in [9] is an example -language accepted by a -way quantum automaton but not by any -way quantum automaton. Furthermore, an -language that can be efficiently recognized by a -way quantum automaton under the almost sure semantics was given in [11], and Bhatia and Kumar [12] examined the relationships between quantum Büchi, Muller, Rabin and Streett automata over -words and their closure properties. However, in our opinion, the definition of quantum Büchi automata given in [9, 10] is problematic (see Section 3.2 for a detailed discussion).
The overall aim of this paper is to properly define the notion of quantum Büchi automata and systematically study their fundamental properties, with the expectation that the results obtained here can serve as the mathematical tools needed in the areas like model-checking quantum systems [13], semantics and verification of quantum programs [14], and analysis of quantum games [15, 16, 17, 18].
1.1 Our Contributions
In this paper, we propose a formal definition of quantum Büchi automata (QBAs for short). Specifically, we adopt the idea of measure-once quantum finite automata (MO-QFA) defined in [7], and extend it to accept -words under a Büchi-like acceptance condition (see Definition 3.1). Roughly speaking, the quantum Büchi acceptance condition we employ is that there is an accepting state such that the states in the run of the quantum finite automaton can be close enough to infinitely often. This is an intuitive generalization of Büchi acceptance condition to the quantum case.
Suppose is a finite alphabet. Let denote the set of -words over . Under the quantum Büchi acceptance condition, we define the characteristic function
of a QBA . Based on it, we define -languages recognized by QBAs under several different semantics. Specifically, we write for the -language, i.e., the set of -words such that , where is either or , and . It is called the strict (resp. non-strict) threshold semantics if is (resp. ). Especially, if is , it is called the probable semantics, and if is , it is called the almost sure semantics.
An Equivalent Definition: For a better understanding of QBAs, we consider another definition of quantum Büchi acceptance condition (see Definition 4.1) that only requires the states in the run to hit the accepting subspace infinitely often. At the first glance, it is different from the original quantum Büchi acceptance condition because one requires to hit a subspace while the other requires to hit a state. But surprisingly, we show that they are equivalent (see Lemma 4.1). As a result, one can write the characteristic function of QBAs as the supremum limit of that of MO-QFAs (see Lemma 4.2). This can be seen as a quantum generalization of the well-known relationship between classical finite automata and classical Büchi automata (see Fact 2.1).
Pumping Lemmas: To clarify the non-inclusion relationship between various classes of -languages, we provide several pumping lemmas for QBAs: Theorem 5.1 is an -generalization of the pumping lemma for MO-QFAs over finite words given in [7]. Theorem 5.2 are particularly more useful to exclude an -language that cannot be recognized by any QBAs. As their applications, we examine the relationship between QBAs (see Theorem 6.2), compare QBAs with classical Büchi automata (see Theorem 7.4), and prove several closure properties of QBAs (see Theorem 8.2).
Classification of Quantum -Languages: We compare the classes of -languages recognized by QBAs under different threshold semantics. Let stand for the class of -languages over all QBAs . By definition, there should be uncountably infinitely many classes of -languages recognized by QBAs. But surprisingly, only four of them are substantially different (see Theorem 6.1):
where can be any constant, e.g., . Furthermore, we show that and , but for any . An overview of the relationship between QBAs under different semantics is depicted in Figure 1.
Relationship with Classical -Languages: Using our pumping lemmas, we show that the -languages recognized by classical Büchi automata and QBAs are incomparable. Specifically, we show that there is an -regular language and an -context-free (but not regular) language that are not in (see Theorem 7.4). Conversely, we show that there is an -language in that is not -regular, and there is an -language in that is not even -context-free (see Theorem 7.3).
Closure Properties: Using the basic operations of QBAs, we show that is closed under union, and for is closed under union in the limit (see Theorem 8.1). However, for is not closed under intersection or complementation (see Theorem 8.2). Our results on closure properties for QBAs are summarized in Table 1.
Class of Languages | Operation | Closed or Not | Theorem |
---|---|---|---|
Union | Y | Theorem 8.1 (1) | |
, | Union | Y (in the limit) | Theorem 8.1 (2) |
, | Intersection | N | Theorem 8.2 (1) |
, | Complementation | N | Theorem 8.2 (1) |
, | Limits | N | Theorem 8.2 (2) |
Decision Problems: We prove that the emptiness problem of QBAs is decidable under all semantics considered in this paper: probable, almost sure, strict and non-strict threshold semantics (see Theorem 9.2 and Theorem 9.5). We also show that the emptiness problem of the intersection of two QBAs is decidable (see Theorem 9.7). Our results on decision problems for QBAs are summarized in Table 2.
1.2 Organization of This Paper
In Section 2, we review the basic notions of words, languages, automata, and their quantum generalizations. In Section 3, we give a formal definition of QBAs. In Section 4, we present some basic properties of QBAs. Pumping lemmas for QBAs are proved in Section 5. The relationship between classical -languages and QBAs is clarified in Section 7. Closure properties of QBAs are studied in Section 8. Decision problems of QBAs are solved in Section 9. Finally, a brief conclusion is drawn in Section 10.
For readability, some proofs in this paper are put into the Appendices.
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we briefly review the basic notions needed in this paper, including -languages, Büchi automata, and quantum finite automata.
2.1 Languages and -Languages
Let be a finite alphabet. A finite word over alphabet of length can be seen as a function , where . We write to indicate the -th character of for . Especially, we write to denote the empty string with length . We write for the set of all words of length , for the set of all finite words, and for the set of all non-empty finite words. A (finite) language over alphabet is a set of finite words; that is, .
An infinite word (a.k.a. -word) over alphabet can be seen as a function . We also write to indicate the -th character of . We write to denote the set of all -words. An infinite language (a.k.a. -language) over alphabet is a set of -words; that is, . We write for the prefix finite word of of length , i.e., for every . For any character , we write to denote the -word that consists of the only character , i.e., for every . For any non-empty finite word , we write for the -word that repeats infinitely, i.e., for every .
2.2 Finite Automata and Büchi Automata
Now let us recall the notions of (classical) finite automata and (classical) Büchi automata.
Definition 2.1 (Finite automaton [19]).
A finite automaton (FA) is a tuple , where
-
1.
is a finite set of states;
-
2.
is the initial state;
-
3.
is a finite alphabet;
-
4.
is the transition function;
-
5.
is the set of accepting states.
A finite automaton is called deterministic if for every state and character ; otherwise, it is called nondeterministic.
For every finite word , a run on input of finite automaton is a finite sequence such that
-
1.
;
-
2.
for every .
A finite word over is accepted by finite automaton if there is a run on input of such that . Let be the characteristic function of the language accepted by finite automaton , i.e., if accepts and otherwise. The language recognized by is defined by
We write
to denote the class of all languages that can be recognized by a finite automaton. It is widely known that (cf. [19]), where is the class of regular languages.
When a finite automaton is used to recognize -words, it is usually called a Büchi automaton (BA). For every -word , a run on input of BA is an infinite sequence such that
-
1.
;
-
2.
for every .
An -word over is accepted by BA if there is a run on input such that there is an accepting state that appears in the run for infinitely many times. That is, there is an accepting state and an infinite increasing sequence of non-negative integers such that for every . Let be the characteristic function of the language accepted by BA , i.e., if accepts and otherwise. The -language recognized by is defined by
We write
to denote the class of all -languages that can be recognized by a BA. It is known that (cf. [2]), where is the class of -regular languages.
The following fact reveals the relationship between finite automata and Büchi automata as acceptors of finite words and -words, respectively.
Fact 2.1.
For any finite automaton and -word , we have
2.3 Linear Algebra for Quantum Mechanics
We use the notations in [20] for quantum computation and quantum information. In quantum mechanics, the state of a quantum system is a unit vector in a Hilbert space . The norm (length) of a vector is defined by , where denotes the inner product of and . For any linear operator on Hilbert space , the trace of is defined by , where is any orthonormal basis of . The orthogonal complement of a subspace of Hilbert space is defined by . The evolution of a quantum system is described by a unitary operator such that , where denotes the conjugate transpose of and is the identity. To retrieve information from a quantum system, we perform quantum measurements on quantum states. A quantum measurement is described by a set of (linear) operators with the normalization condition . If quantum measurement is performed on a quantum system in state , then, with probability , the measurement outcome is and the quantum state becomes .
Let and be two Hilbert spaces, with and being the orthonormal bases of and , respectively. The tensor product of and is defined by . The direct sum of and is defined by . Let and be linear operators on and , respectively. The tensor product of and is denoted by , and . The direct sum of and is denoted by , and .
2.4 Quantum Finite Automata
There are several different definitions of quantum finite automata in the literature. Here, we choose the most intuitive one defined in [7], commonly known as the MO-QFA (Measure-Once Quantum Finite Automaton). Our idea for defining quantum Büchi automata is based on MO-QFA. We will use quantum finite automata (QFA) to mean MO-QFA throughout this paper unless otherwise specified.
Definition 2.2 (Quantum finite automaton [7]).
A quantum finite automaton (QFA) is a 5-tuple , where
-
1.
is a finite-dimensional Hilbert space;
-
2.
is a pure state in , called the initial state;
-
3.
is a finite alphabet;
-
4.
For each , is a unitary operator on ;
-
5.
is a subspace of , called the space of accepting states.
For every finite word , the run on input of QFA is a sequence of quantum states such that for every . According to the Born law in quantum mechanics, a finite word over is accepted by with probability
where is the projector on subspace , and . Then the language recognized by QFA is defined as
where and . Here, recognizability is treated in threshold semantics . Especially, if is , it is called probable semantics, and if is , it is called almost sure semantics. We write
to denote the class of all languages that can be recognized by a QFA under semantics .
3 Definition of Quantum Büchi Automata
Now we start to define quantum Büchi automata. Recall that in a classical Büchi automaton, a run is Büchi accepted if there is an accepting state which appears in the run for infinitely many times. In the quantum case, each state defines a yes/no measurement where and This measurement is used to check whether the system is in the state .
3.1 Quantum Büchi Acceptance
A quantum Büchi automaton (QBA) is a quantum finite automaton (QFA) under Büchi acceptance condition. In this sense, let be a QFA, and an infinite word. Then the run on input of is the infinite sequence of quantum states with for all .
Definition 3.1 (Quantum Büchi acceptance condition).
The characteristic function of QFA under Büchi acceptance condition is defined by
(1) |
for every -word , where is the run on input of , ranges over all infinite sequences with , and each is called a checkpoint.
Intuitively, in Eq. (1) can be understood as the similarity degree between states and . The physical interpretation of the sequence for is given by the following experiment. Take a system and perform measurement on it after it runs steps, is the probability that the measurement outcome is “yes”, then discard the system. Take a second, identically prepared system, let it run steps, perform measurement on it, is the probability that the outcome is “yes”, then discard the system. We can continue this procedure for an arbitrary number of steps. In fact, this procedure was often adopted by physicists in studying recurrence behaviour of quantum systems (see [21] for an example of quantum random walks).
In Definition 3.1, means that there is an accepting state and infinitely many states in the run on input of with . The following proposition formally states this interpretation.
Proposition 3.1.
Let be a QBA. For every -word , we have
The following example shows how an -word is recognized by a QBA.
Example 1.
Let be a QBA, where , , , , and . Here, stands for the rotation about the axe of the Bloch sphere; that is,
The run on input of is , and for all . It can be seen that because there is a sequence for such that .
3.2 Comparison with Other Definitions
A different definition of Büchi acceptance condition for quantum finite automata was introduced in [9, 10] (see Definitions 9 and 10 in [9]). Using the notations in this paper, it can be rephrased as the following.
Definition 3.2 (Quantum Büchi acceptance condition in [9]).
The characteristic function of QFA under Büchi acceptance condition is defined as follows: for every -word , is the real number such that there is an infinite sequence such that and for all .
We point out that Definition 3.2 is problematic with the following two reasons. Concerning these issues, we argue that our definition for quantum Büchi acceptance condition (Definition 3.1) is more reasonable.
(i) The Validity of Characteristic Function: Suppose for an -word according to Definition 3.2. Then for every , the acceptance condition in Definition 3.2 holds also for . Consequently, Definition 3.2 cannot uniquely determine the value of . Indeed, this definition is still problematic even if we define the value of to be the largest that agrees with Definition 3.2; that is,
(2) |
because in Eq. (2) may not exist as shown by the following example.
Example 2.
(ii) The Interpretation of Büchi Acceptance Condition: Apart from the above issues, the quantum Büchi acceptance in Definition 3.2 does not match the definition of classical Büchi automata. The Büchi acceptance condition requires that there must be an accepting state that appears infinitely often in a run. However, Definition 3.2 only requires that the states in a run should be infinitely often close to the accepting subspace, rather than a specific accepting state. By contrast, our definition of quantum Büchi acceptance (see Eq. (1)) does require that the states in a run are infinitely often close to a specific accepting state in the accepting subspace.
As we will see in Subsection 4.1, the above two issues with Definition 3.2 can actually be remedied, and a modification of Definition 3.2 provides us with an equivalent characterization of QBAs.
Remark 3.1 (A brief comparison with probabilistic Büchi automata).
In [4], the Büchi acceptance of probabilistic finite automata (namely, the characteristic function of probabilistic Büchi automata) is defined through the probability measure over all Büchi accepting runs, where a run is an infinite sequence of (classical) states in the automaton. In comparison, the run of a QBA defined in this paper is an infinite sequence of quantum pure states in the state Hilbert space, and the characteristic function of a QBA is defined as the supreme similarity between the states in the run and the accepting states.
3.3 Semantics of Quantum QBAs
Similar to the case of QFAs in Section 2.4, we can define the probable, almost sure, and threshold semantics for QBAs as follows.
Definition 3.3.
Let be a QBA, , and . The language recognized by under threshold semantics is defined by
The class of languages recognized by QBAs under threshold semantics is defined by
In particular, if is or , it is called probable semantics or almost sure semantics, respectively.
3.4 Illustrative Examples
Let us see an example showing how the semantics define above can be actually used to describe certain behaviours of quantum systems.
Example 3.
Consider a quantum system with Hilbert space and initial state . It behaves as follows: repeatedly choose one of the following two unitary operators 333These unitary operators were also considered in an example of [22, 23] for reasoning about termination of quantum programs.
and apply it. Our question is whether the system’s state can be arbitrarily close to infinitely often. In other words, whether there is an -word such that the state can be arbitrarily close to as we apply according to . Formally, given QBA
the problem is to determine whether ?
The problem in the above example is indeed the emptiness problem of QBAs under the almost sure semantics. It was shown in [24] that the decidability of the emptiness problem of QFAs (for finite words) depends on the specific threshold semantics; in particular, the emptiness of QFAs under almost sure semantics — ? — is undecidable. However, we will show in Section 9 that the emptiness problem of QBAs is decidable under all semantics considered in this paper.
4 Basic Properties of Quantum Büchi Automata
In this section, we investigate basic properties of QBAs. These properties will serve as a step stone for studying the languages recognized by QBAs.
4.1 Alternative Quantum Büchi Acceptance
For a better understanding of QBAs, we first give an alternative definition of quantum Büchi acceptance:
Definition 4.1 (Alternative definition of quantum Büchi acceptance).
The characteristic function of QFA under Büchi acceptance condition is defined by
where is the run on input of , is the projector onto , ranges over all infinite sequences with , and each is called a checkpoint.
Intuitively, Definition 4.1 can be understood as follows: means that there are infinitely many states in the run on input of such that . At the first glance, this acceptance condition looks very different from Definition 3.1, and it is hard to be regarded as a quantum counterpart of Büchi acceptance because it only guarantees that (as a subspace) is hit infinitely often, but Büchi acceptance requires that some specific state in is visited infinitely often. But interestingly, Definitions 3.1 and 4.1 are actually equivalent; more precisely, we have:
Lemma 4.1 (Equivalent definition of QBA).
For any QFA and , it holds that
Proof sketch.
The key observation is that the set of unit vectors in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space is compact. Therefore, if a run hits the accepting subspace infinitely often, then we can find a (Cauchy) subsequence of the run with a limit being a certain accepting state. ∎
Remark 4.1.
Definition 4.1 is indeed a modification of Definition 3.2. The common point is that both definitions consider the accepting subspace and measure how the state in the run falls in this subspace. The difference is that Definition 3.2 does not determine a unique value of the characteristic function; by contrast, Definition 4.1 is well-defined by taking the supremum limit over all states in the run.
4.2 Relationship between QFA and QBA
We recall from Fact 2.1 that the characteristic function of a Büchi automaton is the supremum limit of characteristic functions of a sequence of finite automata. A similar result holds for QBAs.
Lemma 4.2 (QBA as a supremum limit of QFAs).
For any QFA and , it holds that
Lemma 4.2 establishes a connection between QFAs and QBAs. As a simple application, we have:
Corollary 4.3.
Suppose and are two equivalent QFAs; that is, holds for every finite word . Then as QBAs, and are also equivalent; that is, holds for every -word .
However, the following counterexample shows that the converse of Corollary 4.3 is not true.
Example 4.
Let be a QBA, where , , , , and . Let be the same as except for . It can be shown that for any , but .
The characteristic function of a QFA can be used to lower bound that of as a QBA:
Lemma 4.4.
Suppose is a QFA. For any and , we have .
Proof sketch.
As already noted in [7], the powers of any unitary operator can be arbitrarily close to the identity operator. Then we can find a sequence of suitable checkpoints during the infinite repetitions of . ∎
4.3 Basic Operations of QBAs
In this subsection, we study some basic operations of QBAs and show how their characteristic functions can be derived from those of their component QBAs.
Let us first recall the definitions of direct sum, tensor product and orthogonal complement of QFAs from [7].
Definition 4.2 (Operations of QFAs [7]).
Suppose
are two QFAs, and and are two complex numbers with .
-
1.
The weighted direct sum of and is defined by
-
2.
The tensor product of and is defined by
-
3.
The orthogonal complement of is defined by
When and are considered as QBAs, we have:
Lemma 4.5 (Operations of QBAs).
Let be QBAs, and complex numbers with . Then,
-
1.
For weighted direct sums of QBAs, we have
In particular, .
-
2.
For tensor products of QBAs, we have
Especially, . Here, stands for the tensor product of copies of . That is, and .
-
3.
For orthogonal complements of QBAs, we have
and the equality holds if and only if exists, where is the prefix of of length .
Remark 4.2.
For comparison, some stronger results for QFAs were shown in [7]: for every finite word , we have
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
The following lemma for scalar products of QBAs will be needed for clarifying the relationship between different semantics of QBAs (see Theorem 6.1).
Lemma 4.6.
Let be a QBA and . Then for each of the following three functions : , there is a QBA such that for every -word .
5 Pumping Lemmas
In this section, we establish several pumping lemmas for QBAs. They will be used to show that certain language cannot be recognized by QBAs, and thus some non-inclusion and non-closure results are derived (see Theorem 6.2, Theorem 7.4, and Theorem 8.2).
Let us first present a pumping lemma for QBAs in terms of their characteristic functions.
Theorem 5.1.
Let be a QBA. For any and any , there is a positive integer such that
for any and . Moreover, if is -dimensional, there is a constant such that .
Proof sketch.
The basic idea is similar to Lemma 4.4. But in this case, checkpoints for are induced by the checkpoints for after is chosen such that is close to the identity operator. ∎
Theorem 5.1 is an -generalization of (and also inspired by) the pumping lemma for QFAs over finite words given in [7]. Nevertheless, the details of the proof are different.
The following theorem is essentially a corollary of Theorem 5.1. But it is more convenient for excluding languages that cannot be recognized by QBAs (see the proofs of Theorem 6.2, Theorem 7.4, and Theorem 8.2).
Theorem 5.2 (Pumping lemmas for QBAs).
Let for some .
-
1.
For any , and , implies that there are infinitely many positive integers such that .
-
2.
For any , there are infinitely many prefixes of such that for all .
6 Relationship between Different Semantics
In this section, we examine the relationship between the probable, almost sure and (non-)strict threshold semantics of QBAs.
6.1 Inclusion Relations
The following theorem shows that the specific threshold value is not sensitive for the classes of -languages recognized by QBAs under threshold semantics.
Theorem 6.1 (Inclusion).
For every , we have
-
1.
.
-
2.
.
Proof.
We only prove part 1), and part 2) can be proved in a similar way. We proceed in two steps:
-
1.
Show that for every . Note that . For any QBA , by Lemma 4.6, there is a QBA such that
for every . Then, if and only if , which means . As a result, .
-
2.
Show that for every . Note that . For any QBA , by Lemma 4.6, there is a QBA such that for any ,
Then if and only if , which means . As a result, .
The above two steps together yield that for any , it holds that .∎
Theorem 6.1 can be seen as a quantum generalization of the insensitivity of threshold values for the -languages recognized by probabilistic Büchi automata (PBA) proved in [4, Lemma 4.15 and Lemma 4.16]. This theorem will be used in Subsection 6.3 as a key tool for the classification of classes of -languages recognized by QBAs.
6.2 Non-Inclusion Relations
We can show that the class of -language recognized by QBAs under the almost sure semantics is not included in that under the strict threshold (therefore, also the probable) semantics.
Theorem 6.2 (Non-inclusion).
For every , .
Proof sketch.
6.3 Classification of Classes of -Languages
7 Relationship with Classical -Languages
The aim of this section is to clarify the relationship between classical -languages and QBAs.
7.1 -Languages Recognized by QBAs beyond Classical
First, we are going to show that the expressive power of QBAs can go beyond -regular languages and even -context-free languages. For this purpose, we need two more pumping lemmas for classical Büchi automata. The first is a pumping lemma for -regular languages from [25]:
Theorem 7.1 (A pumping lemma for [25]).
Let be an -regular language. There exists an integer such that for any word , and for any integer , can be written as , where , and , such that
-
1.
,
-
2.
, and
-
3.
For all , .
The second is a pumping lemma for -context-free languages. To the best of our knowledge, it seems new, and is of independent interest:
Theorem 7.2 (A pumping lemma for ).
Let be an -context-free language. Then there exists an positive integer such that each can be written as , where and , such that
-
1.
,
-
2.
, and
-
3.
For all , .
Proof sketch.
Equipped with the above pumping lemmas, we are able to show that some -languages recognized by QBAs are neither -regular nor -context-free.
Theorem 7.3.
We have
-
1.
for .
-
2.
.
Proof sketch.
To prove 1), let be a QBA, where , , , , and . We choose and let . We use Theorem 7.1 to show that is not -regular. For any positive integer , we choose the infinite word and set . Then for any split , where and , we can find certain non-negative integer , such that
By Theorem 7.1, we conclude that is not -regular.
To prove 2), let be a QBA, where , , , , , and . Let . We use Theorem 7.2 to show that is not -context-free. For any positive integer , we choose . Then for any split where and with and , we can find certain non-negative integer such that . Thus, we conclude that . ∎
7.2 Classical -Languages Not Recognized by QBAs
We can also prove a converse of Theorem 7.3 in the sense that there are some -regular and -context-free languages that cannot be recognized by QBAs.
Theorem 7.4.
For , we have
-
1.
.
-
2.
.
Proof.
We will prove the theorem using the pumping lemma for QBAs (Theorem 5.2).
To prove 1), consider the -regular language
We use Theorem 5.2 (2) to show that . Choose . Suppose that there are infinitely many ’s such that for any . Let . Then we obtain , which is a contradiction. Therefore, , and .
To prove 2), consider the -context-free but not -regular language
We use Theorem 5.2 (1) to show that . Choose with and , where and . Suppose there are infinitely many ’s such that . Then , which is a contradiction. Therefore, , and . ∎
8 Closure Properties
The aim of this section is to investigate the closure properties of the languages recognized by QBAs under Boolean operations (union, intersection, complementation) and limits.
8.1 Closure Results
Let us first consider closure properties under union.
Theorem 8.1 (Closure of union).
We have
-
1.
is closed under union.
-
2.
For , is closed under union in the limit: if , then there is a sequence such that
Proof sketch.
Let and be two QBAs. To see that is closed under union, let
Then it can be shown that .
8.2 Non-Closure Results
Next, we show that is not closed under intersection, complementation, or limits by providing counterexamples.
Theorem 8.2 (Non-closure).
We have
-
1.
is not closed under intersection or complementation for .
-
2.
is not closed under limits for .
Proof.
To see that is not closed under complementation, let be a QBA, where , , , , and . Then it follows from Theorem 6.1 that . Let be the complement of . Then we can show that by Theorem 5.2 (2). Choose , i.e., . For any prefixes of with , we choose . Then it can be shown that , i.e., . By Theorem 5.2 (2), we know that .
To see that is not closed under intersection, let be a QBA, where , , , , and . Let and . By Theorem 6.1, we have . Now we show that by Theorem 5.2 (2). Choose . This can be verified by . For any prefixes of with , we choose . It can be shown that by noting that . Then by Theorem 5.2 (2), we know that .
9 Decision Problems
In this section, we consider several decision problems about the emptiness of the -languages recognized by QBAs.
9.1 Emptiness Problem under Strict Threshold Semantics
We first note that the emptiness of the -languages recognized by QBAs under the strict threshold semantics is equivalent to the emptiness of the languages recognized by QFAs.
Lemma 9.1.
For any QFA and threshold , if and only if .
Proof.
We first show that implies . If , then there is an -word such that . By Lemma 4.2, it holds that
Then there is a checkpoint such that . Therefore, and .
Then, we show that implies . If , then there is a finite word such that . We choose any finite non-empty word . Then by Lemma 4.4, we obtain
Therefore, and . ∎
It was proved in [24] that given a QFA and a threshold , whether there exists a word such that is decidable. This fact together with Lemma 9.1 immediately yields the following decidability result:
Theorem 9.2 (Decidability of the emptiness under strict threshold semantics).
For any QBA and threshold , it is decidable whether .
9.2 Emptiness Problem under Non-strict Threshold Semantics
Now we turn to deal with the emptiness problem under the non-strict threshold semantics. The proof techniques for this case are quite different from those used in the last subsection for the strict threshold semantics.
Lemma 9.3.
Let be a QFA, and . Then the following two statements are equivalent:
-
1.
-
2.
There is an element such that , where is the closure of the semigroup , and .
Proof.
We first show that (1) implies (2). If , then there is an -word such that . By Lemma 4.2, we have , which implies that there is a sequence of checkpoints such that ; that is , where we use to denote for short. Since is closed, there is a subsequence , and an element such that . Note that is continuous. Then we obtain:
Then, we show that (2) implies (1). Suppose that there is an element such that . Then there is a sequence such that for all and . Since is continuous, we have , that is,
In particular, we choose , then there is a such that
Note that for any , there is a finite word such that . Thus, we have
Now we construct a sequence of finite words as follows.
-
•
Initially, set with .
-
•
For every , suppose we have chosen such that . Let
then by the pumping lemma of QFAs [7, Theorem 6], there is a for some constant such that
We set . Then it holds that
Using the above construction, we obtain a sequence of finite words, where for some . By Lemma 4.2, we have
Therefore, we can find an -word such that , which implies that . ∎
In order to reduce the emptiness problem under the non-strict threshold semantics into a first-order formula by Lemma 9.3, we need the following algebraic result about unitary groups:
Lemma 9.4 (Algebraicity of unitary groups [24]).
Let for be unitary matrices of dimension . Let be the closure of the semigroup . Then is algebraic, and if ’s have computable entries, we can compute a sequence of polynomials such that
-
1.
If , then for all .
-
2.
There exists some such that .
Now we are able to show the decidability of the emptiness problem for non-strict thresholds.
Theorem 9.5 (Decidability of the emptiness under non-strict threshold semantics).
For any QBA and threshold , it is decidable whether .
Proof.
By Lemma 9.3, the emptiness problem is equivalent to: whether there is an element such that , which can be written as a first-order formula
where are polynomials that can be computed by Lemma 9.4, and is defined by . To conclude the proof, we note that the above first-order formula is decidable using the Tarski-Seidenberg elimination method [29]. ∎
9.3 Emptiness Problem under Intersection
In this subsection, we consider the emptiness of the intersection of languages recognized by two QBAs under the strict threshold semantics. The following lemma gives a necessary and sufficient condition for this emptiness in terms of the languages recognized by the corresponding QFAs.
Lemma 9.6.
Let and be two QBAs, and . Then the following two statements are equivalent:
-
1.
;
-
2.
There are two finite words such that and .
Proof.
We first show that (1) implies (2). If , then there is an -word such that and . By Lemma 4.2, there are two sequences of checkpoints and such that for all , we have , and . Without loss of generality, we may assume that . Suppose . Let and It can be verified that and .
Then, we show that (2) implies (1). If there are two finite words and such that and . By Lemma 4.4, we obtain , and . The above arguments show that . ∎
Using a technique similar to that in the proof of Theorem 9.5, we can reduce the intersection emptiness problem into a decidable first-order formula and thus derive the following:
Theorem 9.7 (Decidability of the emptiness problem under intersection).
For any two QBAs and , and any , it is decidable whether
Proof.
Let and . We note that the unitary operators of are the same as those of , and write for the semigroup induced by the unitary operators of . By Eq. (3), we have and for every finite word . By Lemma 9.6, the emptiness problem of the intersection of and is equivalent to: whether there are two elements such that and , which can be written as a first-order formula
where are polynomials that can be computed by Lemma 9.4, and and are defined by and . This is a first-order formula and can be decided by the Tarski-Seidenberg elimination method [29]. ∎
10 Conclusion and Discussions
In this paper, we defined the notion of QBAs and studied the -languages recognized by QBAs under the probable, almost sure, (non-)strict threshold semantics. In particular, we established several pumping lemmas for QBAs and use them to prove closure properties of QBAs and to clarify the relationship between the -languages recognized by classical Büchi automata and QBAs.
However, some basic problems are still unsolved. For example, the equivalence checking problem for QFAs has been extensively studied in the literature, e.g., [30, 31, 32, 33]. Corollary 4.3 enables us to derive the equivalence between two QBAs from the equivalence between them as QFAs. But there is still no algorithm for checking equivalence between QBAs. We leave it for future research. Another interesting open problem is minimization of QBAs, which aims to find the minimal (possibly not unique) automaton that has the same characteristic function over -words as that of a given QBA. The minimization problem of QFAs over finite words has been studied in [34, 33]. But it seems that the methods developed there do not immediately apply to the case of QBAs over -words.
The definition of the QBA in this paper is based on and comparable to the measure-once quantum finite automaton (MO-QFA) [7]. However, other definitions of QFAs such as the measure-many quantum finite automaton (MM-QFA) [5] were also investigated in the literature (see [35] for a detailed review). It would be interesting to study how to define the Büchi acceptance based on other QFAs, and what surprising properties can be discovered in those cases.
Except solving the problems mentioned above, the following topics are also interesting for future research. First, inspired by a recent application of QFAs in checking equivalence of sequential quantum circuits [36], we would like to see applications of QBAs in the fields like model-checking quantum systems [13, 37] as well as analysis and verification of quantum programs [14]. Second, a quantum generalization of timed automata [38] can be introduced based on the results obtained in this paper. We believe that such a quantum model will be very useful in not only quantum computing but also other quantum technologies, including real-time and embedded quantum systems.
Acknowledgements
Qisheng Wang would like to thank Yangjia Li and Shenggang Ying for valuable discussions.
Qisheng Wang was also supported in part by the MEXT Quantum Leap Flagship Program (MEXT Q-LEAP) grants No. JPMXS0120319794.
References
- [1] J. Richard Büchi. On a decision method in restricted second order arithmetic. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 44:1–11, 1966. doi:10.1016/S0049-237X(09)70564-6.
- [2] Wolfgang Thomas. Automata on infinite objects. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, pages 113–191. Elsevier, 1990. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-88074-1.50009-3.
- [3] Christel Baier and Marcus Größer. Recognizing -regular languages with probabilistic automata. In Proceedings of 20th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 137–146, 2005. doi:10.1109/LICS.2005.41.
- [4] Christel Baier, Marcus Größer, and Nathalie Bertrand. Probabilistic -automata. Journal of the ACM, 59(1):1–52, 2012. doi:10.1145/2108242.2108243.
- [5] Attila Kondacs and John Watrous. On the power of quantum finite state automata. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 66–75, 1997. doi:10.1109/SFCS.1997.646094.
- [6] Andris Ambainis and Rūsiņš Freivalds. 1-way quantum finite automata: strengths, weaknesses and generalizations. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 332–341, 1998. doi:10.1109/SFCS.1998.743469.
- [7] Cristopher Moore and James P. Crutchfield. Quantum automata and quantum grammars. Theoretical Computer Science, 237(1–2):275–306, 2000. doi:10.1016/S0304-3975(98)00191-1.
- [8] Alex Brodsky and Nicholas Pippenger. Characterizations of 1-way quantum finite automata. SIAM Journal on Computing, 31(5):1456–1478, 2002. doi:10.1137/S0097539799353443.
- [9] Ieva Rukšāne, Richards Krišlauks, Taisia Mischenko-Slatenkova, Ilze Dzelme-Bērziņa, Rūsiņš Freivalds, and Ieva Nāgele. Probabilistic, frequency and quantum automata on omega-words. In Local Proceedings of SOFSEM 2013, 2013. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236905769_Probabilistic_frequency_and_quantum_automata_on_omega-words.
- [10] Ilze Dzelme-Bērziņa. Quantum finite state automata over infinite words. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Unconventional Computation, page 188, 2010. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13523-1_21.
- [11] Konstantinos Giannakis, Christos Papalitsas, and Theodore Andronikos. Quantum automata for infinite periodic words. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications, pages 1–6, 2015. doi:10.1109/IISA.2015.7388105.
- [12] Amandeep Singh Bhatia and Ajay Kumar. Quantum -automata over infinite words and their relationships. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 58:878–889, 2019. doi:10.1007/s10773-018-3983-0.
- [13] Mingsheng Ying and Yuan Feng. Model Checking Quantum Systems: Principles and Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2021. doi:10.1017/9781108613323.
- [14] Mingsheng Ying. Foundations of Quantum Programming. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, Massachusetts, 2016. doi:10.1016/C2014-0-02660-3.
- [15] Jens Eisert, Martin Wilkens, and Maciej Lewenstein. Quantum games and quantum strategies. Physical Review Letters, 83(15):3077, 1999. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3077.
- [16] David A. Meyer. Quantum strategies. Physical Review Letters, 82(5):1052, 1999. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.1052.
- [17] Gus Gutoski and John Watrous. Toward a general theory of quantum games. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 565–574, 2007. doi:10.1145/1250790.1250873.
- [18] Shengyu Zhang. Quantum strategic game theory. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, pages 39–59, 2012. doi:10.1145/2090236.2090241.
- [19] John E. Hopcroft, Rajeev Motwani, and Jeffrey D. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley, Boston, 3 edition, 2006.
- [20] Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 10 edition, 2010. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511976667.
- [21] M. Štefaňák, I. Jex, and T. Kiss. Recurrence and Pólya number of quantum walks. Physical Review Letters, 100(2):020501, 2008. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.020501.
- [22] Yangjia Li, Nengkun Yu, and Mingsheng Ying. Termination of nondeterministic quantum programs. Acta Informatica, 51(1):1–24, 2014. doi:10.1007/s00236-013-0185-3.
- [23] Yangjia Li and Mingsheng Ying. (Un)decidable problems about reachability of quantum systems. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Concurrency Theory, pages 482–496, 2014. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44584-6_33.
- [24] Vincent D. Blondel, Emmanuel Jeandel, Pascal Koiran, and Natacha Portier. Decidable and undecidable problems about quantum automata. SIAM Journal on Computing, 34(6):1464–1473, 2005. doi:10.1137/S0097539703425861.
- [25] Krishnendu Chatterjee and Nathanaël Fijalkow. Finitary languages. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language and Automata Theory and Applications, pages 216–226, 2011. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21254-3_16.
- [26] Rina S. Cohen and Arie Y. Gold. Theory of -languages I: characterizations of -context-free languages. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 15(2):169–184, 1977. doi:10.1016/S0022-0000(77)80004-4.
- [27] Rina S. Cohen and Arie Y. Gold. Theory of -languages II: a study of various models of -type generation and recognition. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 15(2):185–208, 1977. doi:10.1016/S0022-0000(77)80005-6.
- [28] M. Linna. On -sets associated with context-free languages. Information and Control, 31(3):272–293, 1976. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(76)90415-0.
- [29] James Renegar. On the computational complexity and geometry of the first-order theory of the reals, part I–III. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 13(3):255–352, 1992. doi:10.1016/S0747-7171(10)80003-3.
- [30] Takeshi Koshiba. Polynomial-time algorithms for the equivalence for one-way quantum finite automata. In Proceedings of the 12nd International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation, pages 268–278, 2001. doi:10.1007/3-540-45678-3_24.
- [31] Lvzhou Li and Daowen Qiu. Determination of equivalence between quantum sequential machines. Theoretical Computer Science, 358(1):65–74, 2006. doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2006.03.001.
- [32] Lvzhou Li and Daowen Qiu. Determining the equivalence for one-way quantum finite automata. Theoretical Computer Science, 403(1):42–51, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2008.03.021.
- [33] Qisheng Wang, Junyi Liu, and Mingsheng Ying. Equivalence checking of quantum finite-state machines. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 116:1–21, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2020.08.004.
- [34] Paulo Mateus, Daowen Qiu, and Lvzhou Li. On the complexity of minimizing probabilistic and quantum automata. Information and Computation, 218:36–53, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.ic.2012.07.002.
- [35] Andris Ambainis and Abuzer Yakaryılmaz. Automata and quantum computing. In Handbook of Automata Theory, pages 1457–1493. EMS Press, 2021. doi:10.4171/AUTOMATA-2/17.
- [36] Qisheng Wang, Riling Li, and Mingsheng Ying. Equivalence checking of sequential quantum circuits. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 41(9):3143–3156, 2022. doi:10.1109/TCAD.2021.3117506.
- [37] Mingsheng Ying. Model checking for verification of quantum circuits. In Proceedings of the 24th International Symposium on Formal Methods, pages 23–39, 2021. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90870-6_2.
- [38] Rajeev Alur and David L. Dill. A theory of timed automata. Theoretical Computer Science, 126(2):183–235, 1994. doi:10.1016/0304-3975(94)90010-8.
Appendix A Proofs for Basic Properties of QBAs
A.1 Proof of Lemma 4.1
Before the proof of Lemma 4.1, we first give some equivalent interpretations of and , respectively, according to their definitions for better understanding of quantum Büchi acceptance condition.
Lemma A.1.
Let be a QBA, and be a real number. Let , and let be the run on input of . Then,
-
1.
is equivalent to either of the following condition.
-
(a)
.
-
(b)
-
(a)
-
2.
is equivalent to either of the following condition.
-
(a)
.
-
(b)
.
-
(a)
Proof.
For , the interpretation to condition (a) is straightforward; and the variable in condition (a) can be reduced to a limit form as condition (b). A similar argument also applies to . ∎
Now we are ready to prove Lemma 4.1. The key observation is that the set of unit vectors in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space is compact. Therefore, if the run infinitely hits the accepting subspace, then we can find a subsequence of the run with a limit being a certain accepting state.
A.2 Proof of Lemma 4.4
In order to prove Lemma 4.4, we need the following two lemmas: the first one is about number theory of real numbers; and the second one is about approximation of matrices.
Lemma A.2.
For any real numbers , and for any , there are infinitely many positive integers such that
for all , where is the non-negative fractional part of . Moreover, the smallest can be bounded by for some constant .
Proof.
Let and for . Then the set forms a partition of . Now that there are parts in the partition, we define a function: if and only if . We further define:
By the Pigeonhole Principle, there are two integers such that , i.e. for all . Then . Let . Note that
Then we have . On the other hand, there is a constant such that , e.g., . Hence, . Moreover, since can take only a finite number of different values, we can find an infinite sequence such that for all . We choose for all . Then we can verify that each satisfies the condition . ∎
Lemma A.3.
Let be an -dimensional unitary diagonal matrix. For every , there are infinitely many positive integers such that
where is a diagonal matrix with . Moreover, the smallest is bounded by for some constant .
Proof.
Although this lemma was also implicitly used in the proof of the pumping lemma for QFAs over finite words in [7, Theorem 6], we give a rigorous proof for it for completeness.
Assume that
where and is a real number for all . By Lemma A.2, there are infinitely many positive integers such that
for all , where the smallest can be bounded by for some constant . Let , then
Note that for any ,
Thus, for all , and
∎
Now we are ready to prove Lemma 4.4.
Proof of Lemma 4.4.
By Lemma 4.2, it holds that
Let , where is a unitary matrix and is a diagonal matrix. By Lemma A.3, for any , there are infinitely many integers such that , where is a diagonal matrix with . Note that
Putting this result into supremum limit, we obtain:
Since can be arbitrarily small, let , it holds that , which implies . ∎
A.3 Proof of Lemma 4.5 (1)
A.4 Proof of Lemma 4.5 (2)
A.5 Proof of Lemma 4.5 (3)
A.6 Proof of Lemma 4.6
Proof of Lemma 4.6.
Let be a QBA for any , where:
-
1.
,
-
2.
,
-
3.
, and
-
4.
for all .
It can be verified that for every , and for every .
Let . Then, for every , we have
Let . Then, for every , we have
∎
Appendix B Pumping Lemmas for QBAs
B.1 Proof of Theorem 5.1
Proof of Theorem 5.1.
Let with being -dimensional. For any , by the Spectral Decomposition Theorem (see [20]), there is a unitary matrix and a diagonal matrix such that . Then by Lemma A.3, we choose , then there is a positive integer for some constant such that , where is a diagonal matrix with . For any and , we split the proof into two steps.
Step 1. Let be any real number such that , then by Lemma A.1, , where is the run on input of . Without loss of generality, we may assume that (because is a finite word). Then Now we consider the word . Let and let be the run on input of . Then
By Lemma A.1, it holds that Since can arbitrarily tend to , we have:
(6) |
Step 2. Let be any real number such that , then by Lemma A.1, there is a such that for any state , and any checkpoints , there is a such that , where is the run on of . Without loss of generality, we may assume that (because is a finite word). Then Now we consider the word . Let and be the run on of . Then
By Lemma A.1, it holds that Since can arbitrarily tend to , we have:
(7) |
B.2 Proof of Theorem 5.2
Appendix C Non-Inclusion Relations of QBAs
Proof of Theorem 6.2.
We will show this non-inclusion result by a counterexample. We choose a QBA , where:
-
1.
,
-
2.
,
-
3.
,
-
4.
, and
-
5.
and .
Let . We now use Theorem 5.2 (the second item) to show that for any . We choose . For any prefix of , say for some , and we choose . Note that , and thus . As a result, we have: for any .
It remains to show that and for all .
Step 1. Show that .
By Lemma 4.4, we obtain: , and thus , i.e., .
Step 2. Show that .
∎
Appendix D Pumping Lemma for -Context-Free Languages
To prove Theorem 7.2, we first recall the following pumping lemma for context-free languages from [19].
Theorem D.1 (Pumping lemma for , [19]).
If is a context-free language, then there exists an integer such that each word with can be written as , where , such that
-
1.
,
-
2.
, and
-
3.
For all , .
Then, we will generalize the pumping lemma for context-free languages stated in Theorem D.1 to that for -context-free languages.
Proof of Theorem 7.2.
For any -language , every -word in can be expressed as the concatenation of infinitely many finite context-free words by the -Kleene closure (cf. [26, 27, 28]). That is, there are pairs of -languages and such that and
Let be an -word. If , then for some . Furthermore, can be written as , where and for all . Note that each has its own “pumping length”, say for all . That is, by Theorem D.1, for any , there is an integer such that each with can be written as such that
-
1.
,
-
2.
, and
-
3.
For all , .
Now let and . We choose to be the “pumping length” of . Then, we consider the two cases as follows.
-
1.
There is a such that . We apply Theorem D.1 on . Then, can be written as , where , such that
-
•
, , and
-
•
for all .
Now we choose , , , , and , then it can be verified that
-
(a)
,
-
(b)
, and
-
(c)
for any , we have .
-
•
-
2.
for all . In this case, we choose , , , , and , then it can be verified that
-
•
,
-
•
, and for all , .
-
•
From the above two cases, we conclude that is a valid “pumping length” of , and these yield the proof. ∎
Appendix E Expressiveness of QBA beyond Classical
Proof of Theorem 7.3.
We first show the first part that for . Let be a QBA, where:
-
1.
,
-
2.
,
-
3.
,
-
4.
, and
-
5.
and .
We choose and let . We use Theorem 7.1 to show that is not -regular. For any positive integer , we choose the infinite word and choose . Then for any split , where and , we can find certain non-negative integer , and then have By Theorem 7.1, we conclude that is not -regular.
It remains to show that: (1) for any , , and (2) for any , there is a non-negative integer such that .
-
1.
.
For any , note that the state of the run on input of at the checkpoint is , and thus , i.e., .
-
2.
For every and every , there exists a non-negative integer such that .
For every and every , note that the state of the run on input of at the checkpoint and are and , respectively, for all . Thus
Note that and If we choose such that is close enough to , then
which implies that .
Therefore, is not -regular. As a result, we have .
Next, we will show the second part that . Let be a QBA, where:
-
1.
,
-
2.
,
-
3.
,
-
4.
, and
-
5.
, and .
Let . We use Theorem 7.2 to show that is not -context-free. For any positive integer , we choose ; for any split where and with and , we can find certain non-negative integer such that . Then, we conclude that .
It remains to show that: (1) , and (2) for every and every split , there exists a non-negative integer such that .
-
1.
for every .
For any with , we choose the sequence of checkpoints . Note that for all , where is the run on input of . Thus, , and , i.e., .
-
2.
For every and every split , there exists a non-negative integer such that .
For any split where and , note that cannot contain all the letters in the alphabet , which are , and . The analysis can be divided into several cases. Here, we only consider one of them, and the rest cases are similar. We consider the case that contains but does not contain . For convenience, we use to denote the number of occurrences of symbol in word , e.g. . Then the case we are considering can be interpreted as and . Note that for any prefix of , we have and the equality holds if and only if . We further note that there is a word , which is a prefix of , such that , and thus Then
On the other hand, for any , the run on input of is
for every . Now we consider the run on input of , and the checkpoint for all . Note that
We further note that if we choose , then
Therefore, for any . Moreover, note that has a cycle of length , i.e., . If we choose
then for all . By Proposition 3.1, we have:
i.e. .
Hence, is not -context-free, which implies that . ∎
Appendix F Proof of Theorem 8.1
Proof of Theorem 8.1.
We first show the first part that is closed under union. Suppose and are the QBAs of and , respectively. That is, and . Let . We will prove that as follows.
-
1.
.
-
2.
.
The above arguments together show that is closed under union.
Next, we show the second part is closed under union in the limit for . Let and be two QBAs such that and . For every , we define
and . By Theorem 6.1, we know that . In the following, we will show that . We first show that is monotonic, then show that is an upper bound of all , and finally show that this upper bound is tight.
Claim 1. For any , we have .
Proof.
Claim 2. For any , .
Proof.
The above two claims imply that the sequence of -languages has a limit, and
Then, we will show that this inclusion is not proper.
Claim 3. For any proper subset , there is a such that .
Proof.
For any proper subset , there is an -word but . Without loss of generality, we may assume that , i.e., . By Lemma 4.1, there is a sequence of checkpoints such that . Note that
Then, there is an integer such that
Then, we have
Finally, by Lemma 4.1 and Eq. (3), we have
i.e., . This means that we find a such that . ∎
Through the above claims, we conclude that , and we complete the proof. ∎
Appendix G Supplementary Proof of Theorem 8.2
In the proof the Theorem 8.2 that is not closed under limits for , is left unproven. Here, we fill this gap.
First, it can be seen that is monotonic. Specifically, for every , we have . This shows the existence of . Moreover, it can be shown that is a lower bound of every , i.e., for every . The two claims can be obtained by similar arguments in Theorem 8.1. Then, these together yield that
To show the equality, suppose . Then, there is an -word such that but , i.e., . Now let
It can be verified that
and thus . A contradiction arises. Finally, we conclude that .