Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

On M-unambiguity of Parikh matrices

Indonesian Journal of Combinatorics

https://doi.org/10.19184/IJC.2020.4.1.1

Abstract

The Parikh matrix mapping was introduced by Mateescu et al. in 2001 as a canonical generalization of the classical Parikh mapping. The injectivity problem of Parikh matrices, even for ternary case, has withstanded numerous attempts over a decade by various researchers, among whom is Serbanuta. Certain M-ambiguous words are crucial in Serbanuta's findings about the number of M-unambiguous prints. We will show that these words are in fact strongly M-ambiguous, thus suggesting a possible extension of Serbanuta’s work to the context of strong M-equivalence. In addition, initial results pertaining to a related conjecture by Serbanuta will be presented.

References (19)

  1. Every word w such that pr(w ) = w is M-unambiguous.
  2. M-unambiguous, consecutive letters in w must be adjacent in Σ. Hence, the conclusion holds easily if w has length at most two. Assume |w| ≥ 3. If xyx is a factor of w where the letters x and y are adjacent in Σ, then because xyyx is M-equivalent to References
  3. A. Atanasiu, Binary amiable words, Internat. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 18 (2007), 387-400.
  4. A. Atanasiu, Parikh matrices, amiability and Istrail morphism, Internat. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 21 (2010), 1021-1033.
  5. A. Atanasiu, R. Atanasiu, and I. Petre, Parikh matrices and amiable words, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 390 (2008), 102-109.
  6. S. Fossé and G. Richomme, Some characterizations of Parikh matrix equivalent binary words, Inform. Process. Lett. 92 (2004), 77-82.
  7. K. Mahalingam and K. G. Subramanian, Product of Parikh matrices and commutativity, In- ternat. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 23 (2012), 207-223.
  8. A. Mateescu, A. Salomaa, K. Salomaa, and S. Yu, A sharpening of the Parikh mapping, Theor. Inform. Appl. 35 (2001), 551-564.
  9. R. J. Parikh, On context-free languages, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 13 (1966), 570-581.
  10. A. Salomaa, On the injectivity of Parikh matrix mappings, Fund. Inform. 64 (2005), 391-404.
  11. A. Salomaa, Criteria for the matrix equivalence of words, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 411 (2010), 1818-1827.
  12. V. N. S ¸erbȃnut ¸ȃ, On Parikh matrices, ambiguity, and prints, Internat. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 20 (2009), 151-165.
  13. V. N. S ¸erbȃnut ¸ȃ and T.F. S ¸erbȃnut ¸ȃ, Injectivity of the Parikh matrix mappings revisited, Fund. Inform. 73 (2006), 265-283.
  14. W. C. Teh, Parikh matrices and strong M -equivalence, Internat. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 27 (2016), 545-556.
  15. W. C. Teh, On core words and the Parikh matrix mapping, Internat. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 26 (2015), 123-142.
  16. W. C. Teh, Parikh matrices and Parikh rewriting systems, Fund. Inform. 146 (2016), 305-320.
  17. W. C. Teh, Separability of M -equivalent words by morphisms, Internat. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 27 (2016), 39-52.
  18. W. C. Teh and A. Atanasiu, On a conjecture about Parikh matrices, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 628 (2016), 30-39.
  19. W. C. Teh, A. Atanasiu, and G. Poovanandran, On strongly M-unambiguous prints and S ¸erbȃnut ¸ȃs conjecture for Parikh matrices, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 719 (2018), 86-93.