Kinda related but I'm looking for something that could give me the number of possible matching strings for a simple regex. Does such a tool exist ?
Automata are really a lost art in modern natural language processing. We used to do things like store a large vocabulary in an deterministic acyclic minimized automaton (nice and compact, so-called dictionary automaton). And then to find, say all words within Levenshtein distance 2 of hacker, create a Levenshtein automaton for hacker and then compute (on the fly) the intersection between the Levenshtein automaton and the dictionary automaton. The language of the automaton is then all words within the intersection automaton.
I wrote a Java package a decade ago that implements some of this stuff:
That's basically a Trie right? To be fair I have only heard of them and know they can be used to do neat tricks, I've rarely used one myself.
For example, if you have words
talk
talked
talking
talks
walk
walked
walking
walks
Basically, you need an accumulator of "stuff up to here". If you move from a node to a second node, you add the character annotating that edge to the accumulator. And whenever you end up with an edge to a visited node, you add a '*' and output that, and for leaf nodes, you output the accumulator.
And then you add a silly jumble of parenthesis on entry and output to make it right. This was kinda simple to figure out with stuff like (a(ab)*b)* and such.
This is in O(states) for R and O(2^states) for NR if I recall right.
however, as others have pointed out any non-trivial use of the kleene star means the result will be ∞. in this case the page will list numbers that roughly correspond to "number of strings with N applications of kleene star" in addition to infinity.
(EDIT: this code is completely wrongheaded and does not work; it assumes that when sequencing regexes, you can take the product of their sizes to find the overall size. This is just not true. See reply, below, for an example.)
-- https://gist.github.com/rntz/03604e36888a8c6f08bb5e8c665ba9d0
import qualified Data.List as List
data Regex = Class [Char] -- character class
| Seq [Regex] -- sequence, ABC
| Choice [Regex] -- choice, A|B|C
| Star Regex -- zero or more, A*
deriving (Show)
data Size = Finite Int | Infinite deriving (Show, Eq)
instance Num Size where
abs = undefined; signum = undefined; negate = undefined -- unnecessary
fromInteger = Finite . fromInteger
Finite x + Finite y = Finite (x + y)
_ + _ = Infinite
Finite x * Finite y = Finite (x * y)
x * y = if x == 0 || y == 0 then 0 else Infinite
-- computes size & language (list of matching strings, if regex is finite)
eval :: Regex -> (Size, [String])
eval (Class chars) = (Finite (length cset), [[c] | c <- cset])
where cset = List.nub chars
eval (Seq regexes) = (product sizes, concat <$> sequence langs)
where (sizes, langs) = unzip $ map eval regexes
eval (Choice regexes) = (size, lang)
where (sizes, langs) = unzip $ map eval regexes
lang = concat langs
size = if elem Infinite sizes then Infinite
-- finite, so just count 'em. inefficient but works.
else Finite (length (List.nub lang))
eval (Star r) = (size, lang)
where (rsize, rlang) = eval r
size | rsize == 0 = 1
| rsize == 1 && List.nub rlang == [""] = 1
| otherwise = Infinite
lang = [""] ++ ((++) <$> [x | x <- rlang, x /= ""] <*> lang)
size :: Regex -> Size
size = fst . eval
Oof, my hubris.
import Prelude hiding (null)
import Data.Set (Set, toList, fromList, empty, singleton, isSubsetOf, unions, null)
data Regex = Class [Char] -- character class
| Seq [Regex] -- sequence, ABC
| Choice [Regex] -- choice, A|B|C
| Star Regex -- zero or more, A*
deriving (Show)
-- The language of a regex is either finite or infinite.
-- We only care about the finite case.
data Lang = Finite (Set String) | Infinite deriving (Show, Eq)
zero = Finite empty
one = Finite (singleton "")
isEmpty (Finite s) = null s
isEmpty Infinite = False
cat :: Lang -> Lang -> Lang
cat x y | isEmpty x || isEmpty y = zero
cat (Finite s) (Finite t) = Finite $ fromList [x ++ y | x <- toList s, y <- toList t]
cat _ _ = Infinite
subsingleton :: Lang -> Bool
subsingleton Infinite = False
subsingleton (Finite s) = isSubsetOf s (fromList [""])
eval :: Regex -> Lang
eval (Class chars) = Finite $ fromList [[c] | c <- chars]
eval (Seq rs) = foldr cat one $ map eval rs
eval (Choice rs) | any (== Infinite) langs = Infinite
| otherwise = Finite $ unions [s | Finite s <- langs]
where langs = map eval rs
eval (Star r) | subsingleton (eval r) = one
| otherwise = InfiniteHow many ways can (a?){m}(a*){m} match the string a{m}
i.e. input m repetitions of the letter 'a'.
https://github.com/mike-french/myrex#ambiguous-example
The answer is a dot product of two vectors sliced from Pascal's Triangle.
For m=9, there are 864,146 successful matches.
i believe the cardinality of a set of words from a finite alphabet (with more than one member) is equivalent to the cardinality of the real numbers. this means that the cardinality of .* is c.
unfortunately, i don't think that cardinality gets us very far when trying to differentiate the "complexity" of expressions like [ab]* from ([ab]*c[de]*)*[x-z]*. probably some other metric should be used (maybe something like kolmogorov complexity).
As you've rightly noted the latter equivalence class gets us nothing so throwing away the ordering is a bit of a waste. Of all mathematical concepts 'size' is easily the most subjective so picking one that is interesting is better than trying to be 'correct'.
In particular a*b* is exactly equivalent to ω^2, since a^n b^m < a^x b^y iff n < x or n=x and m<y. This gives an order preserving isomorphism between words of the form a^n b^m and tuples (n,m) with lexicographic ordering.
what would [ab]* be? for computing an ordinal number the only real difficulty is how to handle kleene star: given ord(X) how do we calculate ord(X*)?
but as you probably noticed i'm a bit out of my depth when dealing with ordinals.
To reason about the kleene star it's a bit simpler to consider something like R^*n, where you repeat up to n times. Obviously R^*0 = 1 and R^*S(n) can be built from R^*n by picking an element of R^*n and appending either nothing or an element of R, here the element of R^*n determines most of the order and 'nothing' orders in front. For technical reasons the corresponding ordinal is (1+R) R^*n, which is backwards from how you'd expect it and how you'd normally define exponentiation.
The kleene star can be recovered by taking the limit, identifying R^*n with it's image in R^*S(n). Which also doesn't quite work as nicely as you'd hope (normally the image is just a downward closed subset, it's not in this case).
I think [ab]* is equivalent to something like the rational part of the Cantor set. Not sure if there's a simpler way to describe it, it's nowhere near as simple as 2^ω, which is just ω.
Perhaps reversing the lexicographic order makes more sense, in that case longer tuples simply order last so R^* = 1 + R + R^2 + ..., the limit here is much easier since R^*n = 1 + R + ... + R^n is downwards closed as a subset of R^*S(n).
Then again in that scenario [ab]* is simply ω because it is effectively the same as just writing an integer in binary, so it is less interesting in a way.
What this exercise really is is finding a canonical way to order a regular language (the set of strings a regexp matches). For example, a*b* could be {epsilon, a, aa, aaa, aaa, aaaa, ..., b, bb, bbb, bbbb, bbbbb, bbbbbb, ..., ab, aab, aaab, aaaab, ..., abb, aabb, ..., ...} which looks a lot like omega ^ 2 (not 2 * omega like I said before). However, you could also re-arrange the set to look like omega: {epsilon, a, b, aa, bb, ab, aaa, bbb, aab, abb, bbb, ...} (strings of length 1, length 2, length 3, etc)
I propose the following: for any two strings in the regular language, the one that comes first is the one whose kleene-star repetition counts come first lexicographically. More concretely, for the language a*b*, aaaab represents a repetition count of (4, 1) which and bbb represents (0, 3). (0, 3) comes before (4, 1) lexicographically, so bbb comes before aaaab. This admits the following ordering: {epsilon, b, bb, bbb, bbbb, ..., a, abb, abbb, abbbb, ..., aa, aab, aabb, aabbb, ..., ...} which is omega ^ 2 which "feels" right to me. Another rule is for the regular language (X|Y) and two strings x from X and y from Y, x should always come before y in our ordered set representation.
Hold on, what about nested kleene-stars? (a*)* is just a*, but (a*b*)* is distinct from a*b*. However, the "kleene-star counts" analysis from above breaks down because there are now multiple ways to parse strings like aab. I don't really know how to classify these regular languages as ordinals yet.
I don't really see any useful applications of this, but it's still fun to think about. The game I'm playing is thinking about a random ordinal and trying to come up with a regular language that, under my ordering rule above, looks like that ordinal. Let's try 2 * omega (which looks like this: {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., omega, omega + 1, omega + 2, omega + 3, ...} e.g. 2 copies of omega "concatenated"):
a*|b* = {epsilon, a, aa, aaa, aaaa, aaaaa, ..., b, bb, bbb, bbbb, ...} => 2 * omega.
Some more examples:
omega ^ 3: a*b*c*
omega ^ 2 + omega: a*b*|c*
Maybe we can write down some composition rules:
let X and Y be regular languages and ord(X) and ord(Y) be their ordinal representations. Then,
X|Y => ord(X) + ord(Y)
XY => ord(X) * ord(Y)
X* => ord(X) * omega
I haven't checked if these actually work, this is just a long rambly comment of dubious mathematical value.