Fooling a two Way Automaton or one Pushdown Store is better than one Counter for two Way Machines

Abstract We define a language L and show that it cannot be recognized by any two way deterministic counter machine. It is done by fooling any given such machine; i.e. showing that if it accepts L ' ⊇ L , then L ' − L ≠ O . For this purpose, an argument stronger than the well-known crossing sequence argument needs to be introduced. Since L is accepted by a two-way deterministic pushdown automation, we consequently show that one pushdown stack is more powerful than one counter for deterministic two way machines.

[1]  L. Budach Automata and Labyrinths , 1978 .

[2]  Burkhard Monien Transformational methods and their application to complexity problems , 1976, Acta Informatica.

[3]  Andrew Chi-Chih Yao,et al.  K + 1 heads are better than K , 1976, 17th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1976).

[4]  Manuel Blum,et al.  On the power of the compass (or, why mazes are easier to search than graphs) , 1978, 19th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1978).

[5]  Ladislav Janiga Real-time computations of two-way multihead finite automata , 1979, FCT.

[6]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Formal languages and their relation to automata , 1969, Addison-Wesley series in computer science and information processing.

[7]  Tat-hung Chan,et al.  Reversal complexity of counter machines , 1981, STOC '81.

[8]  Stephen A. Cook,et al.  Characterizations of Pushdown Machines in Terms of Time-Bounded Computers , 1971, J. ACM.

[9]  Two-way counter machines and Diophantine equations , 1981, 22nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1981).

[10]  Oscar H. Ibarra,et al.  On Two-way Multihead Automata , 1973, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[11]  William J. Sakoda,et al.  Nondeterminism and the size of two way finite automata , 1978, STOC.

[12]  Michael Sipser,et al.  Lower bounds on the size of sweeping automata , 1979, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..