The 2022 discussion has a more formal proof using the pumping lemma.
The pumping lemma is a great milestone in this field, so simple, yet so powerful.
Sorry I can't parse that
If the "working on something else" means "working on some hard research problem", this is not embarrassing, but stylish. :-)
TIL that the computer-sciencey definition of RE isn't the only one in use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl_Compatible_Regular_Expres...
"Regular Expression Matching Can Be Simple And Fast" (2007)
Regular languages are also closed under intersection and taking prefix etc (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_language#Closure_prope...), and if you want to expose those operators in your regular expressions, Russ Cox's technique doesn't really work.
I also suspect that this might result in a combinatorial explosion of fused terms, but that's irrelevant as we're only worried about whether intersection can be implemented in Russ Cox's method, not whether a regular expression might require several earths or so worth of RAM to hold :)
Nothing in the wiki article mentions taking a prefix, but that just sounds like `(prefix|)`?
As you point out Russ Cox's method can not deal with complement and intersection. You can hack it up by putting a compiler in front, but then you might as well compile to finite automata directly. Or you use derivatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzozowski_derivative or https://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/turon/re-deriv.pdf (or https://well-typed.com/blog/2020/06/fix-ing-regular-expressi... for a Haskell flavour).
> Nothing in the wiki article mentions taking a prefix, but that just sounds like `(prefix|)`?
They implicitly mention prefixes, when they talk about 'the trio operations: string homomorphism, inverse string homomorphism, and intersection with regular languages.' If I remember right, the prefix operation is:
Take a language L, restrict it to the strings that have the right prefix: `L' := L & (prefix.*)` then chop off that prefix from every member of L'.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotient_of_a_formal_language which this is a special case of. The Brzozowski derivative article also explains it in more detail.
Which is why the "RE" in the article is excrutiatingly slow, given that it needs to perform insane amounts of backtracking. In contrast, "real" regular expression checkers run in linear time.
Also, nitpicking, but they take unbounded time. It's still finite.
The inflationary use of "infinite" especially in tech crowds that should know better deserves pushback.
There are models of computation that actually model infinite computation. A well-studied one is Büchi automata, basically a generalization of finite state automata to infinite sequences.
> And I’m not sure about unbounded; surely it is bounded by a suitable exponential function?
Nope. You can nest them and for any function that you give you can produce a RE that takes longer than that function to evaluate. (That's literally what "unbounded" means. There is no bound. Doesn't mean it's "infinite". All those computations terminate, which is literally what "finite" means in this context.)
Coming up with an efficient prime-finding algorithm like Miller-Rabin* is far from trivial.
* Technically it's just a prime-checking algorithm, but you can just generate random numbers until you've verified one of them is prime.
The machine I'm using to type this comment is also a finite state machine, as due to having non-infinite memory, it also cannot count arbitrarily high.
Informally, regular expressions like in Perl are a kind of string rewriting. And many string rewriting rules, if they can be iteratively applied, are Turing-complete (with the usual caveat about infinite storage and time). The usual definition of a regular expression excludes that kind of iterative application, though. It's just a matching pattern; rewriting is technically outside of the concept of a regular expression.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Even given infinite space, there still wouldn't exist a Regular Expression (the CS kind) you could write down in finite time that would match only primes.
At least IIRC, it's been a 20+ years since I last took a Discrete Math course :)
The point is, neither would there exist a non-(Regular Expression) method that could do such, if you're running it on a finite state machine (your computer).
It's more interesting to ask: suppose you did have a magical stick of RAM that had infinite storage, and suppose you augmented your computer to store and query that memory. Then -- yes -- your computer could determine whether any number, however large, is prime. An FSM could not.
Ad absurdum everything would be computable (recognizable) by FSMs, simply by listing all the infinite number of possibilities. listOfAllPrimes.concat(“|”), here you are..
This is just useless pedantism that diminishes the very imporrant categorization of Chomsky.
Your memory is correct and there is very simple intuition for this. Regular languages are those that can be matched by a machine with bounded memory. So, let's say that bound is "n" bits. Then your machine will not be able to read in unary strings larger than 2^n.
Right. And if you really want to push that argument further then there are numbers for which your machine can't decide whether they are prime or not. Most of them, in fact, i.e., for all but a finite number of primes and non-primes, your machine can't tell.
For the theory of computability, this is not a useful model. Neither for complexity theory. Statements like "My machine can sort in constant time" which is arguably true but not useful either. It only holds up to a certain collection size which in a sense makes it both nonsensical and useless. Even concepts like the Chomsky hierarchy with context free languages being one of the prominent components make little sense as long as your computational model is finite state.
Instead, we model them as unbounded, to be able to differentiate between classes of computation problems as well as reason about complexity. The Turing Machine is one of the simple and elegant models, but there are others for other purposes.
I wish that basic education about the theory of computation would stress more why theory treats things like this, to avoid this kind of confusion. (And then people would need to take those classes as well, and not just claim they can write React apps just fine without a degree.)
Weird tangent. They can write React apps without a degree, can't they? What's wrong with that?
The amount of complexity reasoning you need for something like that is around "this part seems slow, maybe there's a better algorithm somewhere" or "that's a lot of nested loops, maybe I can do with less". Knowing more might help in some pretty rare cases but doesn't seem like a requirement. On the other hand, knowing the complexity of all algorithms and blindly assuming "good complexity = good performance" while never checking is a recipe for desaster.
Exactly. That's the difference between an actual education and having looked up some Big-O notation on Wikipedia.
We don't know how original poster differentiates.
A finite regular expression that checks all numbers for being prime cannot exist already in principle.
Come on, can we drop this useless trivia that floats around? No, computers are Turing-machines for all practical purposes and no the memory is not the tape, unless your computer is sandboxed from everything. As soon as it has some side effect channels, its “tape” can be as large as needed. For example, it can use the internet to store petabytes of state. But if we want to be more pedantic, it can control and observe physical things, making the whole universe its state space.
Which is still finite, so yeah, even more pedantically you are right due to mathematical infinity not existing, but the actual distinction of a Turing machine is “lazy”, if you don’t hit the limit, you may as well reason as if it were a Turing machine.
The regex itself is generated from a relatively simple DFA based on mod 7 arithmetic on digits using a program (JFLAP apparently, not familiar).
Just from looking at the start of the regex you can see some cool things. For instance, TIL that all numbers of the form 1555....55554 and 85555....5554 are multiples of 7. Fun exercise to prove it.