Results 1 
3 of
3
Commutation Problems on Sets of Words and Formal Power Series
, 2002
"... We study in this thesis several problems related to commutation on sets of words and on formal power series. We investigate the notion of semilinearity for formal power series in commuting variables, introducing two families of series  the semilinear and the bounded series  both natural generaliza ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We study in this thesis several problems related to commutation on sets of words and on formal power series. We investigate the notion of semilinearity for formal power series in commuting variables, introducing two families of series  the semilinear and the bounded series  both natural generalizations of the semilinear languages, and we study their behaviour under rational operations, morphisms, Hadamard product, and difference. Turning to commutation on sets of words, we then study the notions of centralizer of a language  the largest set commuting with a language , of root and of primitive root of a set of words. We answer a question raised by Conway more than thirty years ago  asking whether or not the centralizer of any rational language is rational  in the case of periodic, binary, and ternary sets of words, as well as for rational ccodes, the most general results on this problem. We also prove that any code has a unique primitive root and that two codes commute if and only if they have the same primitive root, thus solving two conjectures of Ratoandromanana, 1989. Moreover, we prove that the commutation with an ccode X can be characterized similarly as in free monoids: a language commutes with X if and only if it is a union of powers of the primitive root of X.
Commutation with codes
 Theor. Comput. Sci
, 2005
"... The centralizer of a set of words X is the largest set of words C(X) commuting with X: XC(X) = C(X)X. It has been a long standing open question due to Conway, 1971, whether the centralizer of any rational set is rational. While the answer turned out to be negative in general, see Kunc 2004, we prov ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The centralizer of a set of words X is the largest set of words C(X) commuting with X: XC(X) = C(X)X. It has been a long standing open question due to Conway, 1971, whether the centralizer of any rational set is rational. While the answer turned out to be negative in general, see Kunc 2004, we prove here that the situation is different for codes: the centralizer of any rational code is rational and if the code is finite, then the centralizer is finitely generated. This result has been previously proved only for binary and ternary sets of words in a series of papers by the authors and for prefix codes in an ingenious paper by Ratoandromanana 1989 – many of the techniques we use in this paper follow her ideas. We also give in this paper an elementary proof for the prefix case. Key words: Codes, Commutation, Centralizer, Conway’s problem, Prefix codes. 1
Unique Decipherability in the Monoid of Languages: an Application of Rational Relations ⋆
"... Abstract. We attack the problem of deciding whether a finite collection of finite languages is a code, that is, possesses the unique decipherability property in the monoid of finite languages. We investigate a few subcases where the theory of rational relations can be employed to solve the problem. ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We attack the problem of deciding whether a finite collection of finite languages is a code, that is, possesses the unique decipherability property in the monoid of finite languages. We investigate a few subcases where the theory of rational relations can be employed to solve the problem. The case of unary languages is one of them and as a consequence, we show how to decide for two given finite subsets of nonnegative integers, whether they are the nth root of a common set, for some n ≥ 1. We also show that it is decidable whether a finite collection of finite languages is a Parikh code, in the sense that whenever two products of these sets are commutatively equivalent, so are the sequences defining these products. Finally, we consider a nonunary special case where all finite sets consist of words containing exactly one occurrence of the specific letter. Key words: unique decipherability, finite automata, regular languages 1