Paper detail

Hierarchy and equivalence of multi-letter quantum finite automata

Multi-letter {\it quantum finite automata} (QFAs) were a new one-way QFA model proposed recently by Belovs, Rosmanis, and Smotrovs (LNCS, Vol. 4588, Springer, Berlin, 2007, pp. 60-71), and they showed that multi-letter QFAs can accept with no error some regular languages ($(a+b)^{*}b$) that are unacceptable by the one-way QFAs. In this paper, we continue to study multi-letter QFAs. We mainly focus on two issues: (1) we show that $(k+1)$-letter QFAs are computationally more powerful than $k$-letter QFAs, that is, $(k+1)$-letter QFAs can accept some regular languages that are unacceptable by any $k$-letter QFA. A comparison with the one-way QFAs is made by some examples; (2) we prove that a $k_{1}$-letter QFA ${\cal A}_1$ and another $k_{2}$-letter QFA ${\cal A}_2$ are equivalent if and only if they are $(n_{1}+n_{2})^{4}+k-1$-equivalent, and the time complexity of determining the equivalence of two multi-letter QFAs using this method is $O(n^{12}+k^{2}n^{4}+kn^{8})$, where $n_{1}$ and $n_{2}$ are the numbers of states of ${\cal A}_{1}$ and ${\cal A}_{2}$, respectively, and $k=\max(k_{1},k_{2})$. Some other issues are addressed for further consideration.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.