Now things start to get really weird.
Definition 9: Take any alphabet S. The regular expression alphabet of S is S plus a
bunch of extra symbols; it's S ∪ {(,
),
*,
∪,
Ø}
(I assume that none of those symbols are already in S.)
I'm doing something that I said earlier that I would try not to do.
I'm using symbols in an alphabet that I also use in expressions that talk about strings in that alphabet.
(Of course, I also said that this would all fall apart when we got to regular expressions, and sure enough, it did.
Foreshadowing: the sign of a quality blog.)
Again, keep a careful eye on when I'm using fixed-width blue, because those are the "meaningless" symbols,
not expression notation.
Definition 10: Take any alphabet S.
The regular expression language R of an alphabet S is a language formed from strings
of the regular expression language of S, and is defined as follows:
-
Ø is in R.
-
Every member of S is in R
-
If u and w are strings in R then
(uw) is in R.
-
Similarly,
(u∪w) is in R.
- Similarly, u* is in R.
-
Nothing else is in R
An example might help. Suppose that S =
{a,
b}.
The regular expression alphabet of S is
{a,
b,
(,
),
*,
∪,
Ø}.
The regular expression language of S is R =
{Ø,
a,
b,
(ØØ),
(Øa),
(Øb),
(aØ),
(aa),
(ab),
(bØ),
(ba),
(bb),
(Ø∪Ø),
(Ø∪a),
(Ø∪b),
(a∪Ø),
(a∪a),
(a∪b),
(b∪Ø),
(b∪a),
(b∪b),
Ø*,
a*,
b*,
…}
We've defined an alphabet, we've defined a language -- a language which looks suspiciously like
the expressions we've been using to talk about languages.
Next time we'll do something insanely clever to
bridge the gap between strings in the regular expression language and the languages which these
strings would define if they were interpreted as expressions.
