Pumping Lemma for Regular Languages
About 1492 wordsAbout 19 min
2025-08-07
Statement of the Pumping Lemma
Theorem: If L is a regular language, then there exists a constant p≥1 (the pumping length) such that any string s∈L with ∣s∣≥p can be divided into three parts s=xyz satisfying:
- Length constraint: ∣xy∣≤p
- Non-empty pump: ∣y∣>0 (i.e., y=ϵ)
- Pumping condition: For all i≥0, xyiz∈L
Important
The Pumping Lemma provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for regularity.
Understanding the Components
String Decomposition
For any sufficiently long string s∈L:
- x: Prefix (possibly empty)
- y: Pumpable substring (must be non-empty)
- z: Suffix (possibly empty)
Pumping Operation
The lemma guarantees that we can "pump" the y part:
- i=0: Remove y (string becomes xz)
- i=1: Original string (string becomes xyz)
- i=2: Insert y once (string becomes xyyz)
- i=k: Insert y k−1 times (string becomes xykz)
How to Use the Pumping Lemma
Strategy for Proving Non-regularity
- Assume L is regular and let p be its pumping length
- Choose a string s∈L with ∣s∣≥p (carefully selected)
- Consider all possible decompositions s=xyz with ∣xy∣≤p and ∣y∣>0
- Show that for each decomposition, there exists some i≥0 such that xyiz∈/L
- Conclude that L is not regular
Proof Structure
To prove L is not regular:
Assume L is regular for contradiction
Let p be the pumping length
Choose s = (careful selection)
For all possible xyz decompositions:
Find i such that xy^iz ∉ L
Therefore L is not regularCommon Examples
Example 1: L={anbn∣n≥0}
Proof that L is not regular:
- Assume L is regular with pumping length p
- Choose s=apbp∈L (note ∣s∣=2p≥p)
- Consider any decomposition s=xyz where ∣xy∣≤p and ∣y∣>0
- Since ∣xy∣≤p, xy consists only of a's
- Let y=ak where k≥1
- Pump with i=2: xy2z=ap+kbp
- This has p+k a's but only p b's
- Since k≥1, p+k=p
- Therefore ap+kbp∈/L
- Conclusion: L is not regular
Example 2: L={ww∣w∈{a,b}∗}
Proof that L is not regular:
- Assume L is regular with pumping length p
- Choose s=apbapb∈L (where w=apb)
- Consider any decomposition s=xyz with ∣xy∣≤p and ∣y∣>0
- xy must be entirely within the first ap sequence
- Let y=ak where k≥1
- Pump with i=0: xz=ap−kbapb
- This cannot be written as ww for any w
- The first half would need to be a(p−k)/2b but (p−k)/2 may not be integer
- Conclusion: L is not regular
Example 3: L={an2∣n≥0}
Proof that L is not regular:
- Assume L is regular with pumping length p
- Choose s=ap2∈L
- Consider decomposition s=xyz with ∣xy∣≤p and ∣y∣=k where k≥1
- Pump with i=2: xy2z=ap2+k
- We need p2+k=m2 for some integer m
- But p2<p2+k≤p2+p<(p+1)2=p2+2p+1
- Since k≤p, p2+k cannot be a perfect square
- Conclusion: L is not regular
Example 4: L={aibjck∣i=j or j=k}
Proof that L is not regular:
- Assume L is regular with pumping length p
- Choose s=apbpcp+1∈L (satisfies i=j)
- Consider any decomposition s=xyz with ∣xy∣≤p and ∣y∣>0
- Since ∣xy∣≤p, y consists only of a's
- Let y=ak where k≥1
- Pump with i=0: xz=ap−kbpcp+1
- For this to be in L, we need either:
- p−k=p (impossible since k≥1), or
- p=p+1 (impossible)
- Therefore xz∈/L
- For this to be in L, we need either:
- Conclusion: L is not regular
This example shows how the pumping lemma can handle languages with multiple conditions.
Common Mistakes and Pitfalls
Incorrect String Selection
Mistake: Choosing strings that are too short or don't create the right imbalance
Solution: Choose strings where the pumped part creates a clear violation
Wrong Pumping Index
Mistake: Always using i=2 when i=0 might be more effective
Solution: Consider different values of i based on the language structure
Ignoring All Decompositions
Mistake: Only considering one specific decomposition
Solution: Must consider all possible decompositions satisfying the constraints
Variations and Extensions
Pumping Lemma for Context-Free Languages
The pumping lemma for context-free languages is more complex but follows a similar approach:
- Strings can be divided into five parts: uvwxy
- Two parts can be pumped independently
Ogden's Lemma
A stronger version that allows marking positions in the string to pump.
Practical Applications
Compiler Design
- Proving that certain language constructs cannot be handled by regular grammars
- Understanding limitations of lexical analysis
Formal Language Theory
- Classifying languages within the Chomsky hierarchy
- Understanding the boundaries of different language classes
Limitations
What the Pumping Lemma Cannot Do
- Prove regularity: The lemma only provides a necessary condition, not sufficient
- Give the pumping length: The lemma doesn't tell us what p is
- Handle all cases: Some non-regular languages may still satisfy the pumping lemma for certain pumping lengths
When the Pumping Lemma Fails
Some non-regular languages satisfy the pumping lemma:
- L={anbmcndm∣n,m≥0} (not regular but satisfies pumping lemma for certain cases)
Summary
The Pumping Lemma is a powerful tool for proving that languages are not regular. By:
- Understanding the decomposition and pumping conditions
- Carefully selecting test strings
- Systematically analyzing all possible decompositions
- Choosing appropriate pumping indices
We can demonstrate that many interesting languages (like balanced parentheses, equal numbers of symbols, etc.) cannot be recognized by finite automata, highlighting the limitations of regular languages and motivating the study of more powerful language classes.
Remember that the Pumping Lemma is a proof by contradiction technique - we assume regularity and show that it leads to a contradiction by finding strings that cannot be pumped properly.
Problem-Solving Skills: Picking s and i
Analyze constraints of L
- Identify the invariant that pumping will likely break (e.g., equal counts, mirrored halves, forbidden substrings at boundaries).
Choose s with |s| ≥ p
- Place the first p symbols to force y within a controlled region (often a block of the same symbol).
Quantify all decompositions
- Because |xy| ≤ p, y lies in the prefix you control; write y’s general form.
Pick i smartly
- Use i=0 to delete structure or i=2 to increase a count; choose whichever breaks the invariant.
Conclude by contradiction
- Show at least one i yields a string not in L for every legal decomposition.
Additional Worked Examples
L = { strings over {a,b} with exactly one b }
Assume regular, pumping length p. Choose s = a^p b a^p. For any |xy| ≤ p, y = a^k with k ≥ 1. Pump i=0 ⇒ a^{p-k} b a^p has still one b, but length of a’s changes. That alone doesn’t break the spec. Instead pump i=2 ⇒ a^{p+k} b a^p still exactly one b. This language is actually regular; pumping does not lead to a contradiction. Use this as a reminder to test closure intuition before applying pumping.
L = { w ∈ {0,1}^* | #0(w) = #1(w) }
Choose s = 0^p 1^p. y lies in 0^p, so y = 0^k, k ≥ 1. Pump i=2 ⇒ 0{p+k}1p, counts differ ⇒ not in L.
L =
Choose s = a^p b a^p. y in leading a’s, y = a^k, k ≥ 1. Pump i=0 ⇒ a^{p-k} b a^p where head and tail a-counts differ ⇒ not in L.
Strategy Comparisons
Use to prove non-regularity by contradiction.
Show infinitely many distinguishable prefixes/suffixes to prove no finite index, hence non-regular.
Transform with closures (complement, intersection, homomorphisms) to/from known non-regular languages.
Tips
If pumping seems messy, try Myhill–Nerode: fix a family of distinguishing continuations and show they separate infinitely many prefixes.
Changelog
87c17-web-deploy(Auto): Update base URL for web-pages branchon
Copyright
Copyright Ownership:WARREN Y.F. LONG
License under:Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0)