String-matching cannot be done by a two-head one-way deterministic finite automation
Information Processing Letters
A pumping lemma for deterministic context-free languages
Information Processing Letters
Handbook of formal languages, vol. 1
Reversal-Bounded Multicounter Machines and Their Decision Problems
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
L(A)=L(B)? a simplified decidability proof
Theoretical Computer Science
Introduction To Automata Theory, Languages, And Computation
Introduction To Automata Theory, Languages, And Computation
Closure and decidability properties of some language classes with respect to ciliate bio-operations
Theoretical Computer Science
On spiking neural P systems and partially blind counter machines
Natural Computing: an international journal
Hierarchies and Characterizations of Stateless Multicounter Machines
COCOON '09 Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Computing and Combinatorics
On Stateless Multicounter Machines
CiE '09 Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Computability in Europe: Mathematical Theory and Computational Practice
IBM Journal of Research and Development
On stateless multihead automata: Hierarchies and the emptiness problem
Theoretical Computer Science
Reversal-bounded multipushdown machines
Journal of Computer and System Sciences
One-reversal counter machines and multihead automata: Revisited
Theoretical Computer Science
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Among the many models of language acceptors that have been studied in the literature are multihead finite automata (finite automata with multiple one-way input heads) and 1-reversal counter machines (finite automata with multiple counters, where each counter can only "reverse" once, i.e., once a counter decrements, it can no longer increment). The devices can be deterministic or nondeterministic and can be augmented with a pushdown stack. We investigate the relative computational power of these machines. Our results (where C1 and C2 are classes of machines) are of the following types: 1. Machines in C1 and C2 are incomparable. 2. Machines in C1 are strictly weaker than machines in C2. In obtaining results of these types, we use counting and "cut-and-paste" arguments as well as an interesting technique that shows that if a language were accepted by a device in a given class, then all recursively enumerable languages would be decidable.