Why is recursive regex not regex?

Question

I was reading through some of the responses in this question and saw that a few people said that recursive regular expressions were not strictly speaking regular expressions.

Why is this?

Answer 1

“Strictly” regular expressions describe regular languages. But many features, such as the usage of backreferences in the expression itself or recursion for example, can be used to write regular expressions that accept non-regular languages.

For example, the language described by

(a+)b+\1

isn't regular, as you can't force that a appears the same number of times before and after the bs. At least not in a regular language. With context-free or even context-sensitive languages, that's a completely different matter.

However, regular expressions that only use elementary things such as the various quantifiers, character classes, etc. usually still describe regular languages.

Answer 2

A regular expression can be recognized by a finite automaton. A finite automaton has finite memory (hence the name). A recursive regex requires a stack to do the recursion. An stack space can be infinite.

Answer 3

The basis of the other answers requires an understanding of the involved computation theory. If your only exposure to regular expressions is in a programming environment, you may not realize that regular expressions are mathematical constructs, as well. The wikipedia article on regular expressions may provide some background into the theoretical aspects of regular expressions.

Answer 4

The strict definition of regular language from theoretical computer-science may seem abstract with little practical benefit, but if you're ever faced with the need to implement a state machine to recognize certain inputs, you can save yourself a lot of useless effort and hairpulling if you can prove up front that it can't be done.

An informal way to express it is recognizing regular languages cannot require memory. The pumping lemma for regular languages is useful for proving that a particular language (i.e., a set of strings) cannot be recognized by a deterministic finite automaton.

From An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata by Peter Linz (pg. 115, 3rd ed.):

Theorem 4.8

Let L be an infinite regular language. Then there exists some positive integer m such that any w ∈ L with |w| ≥ m can be decomposed as

w = xyz,

with

|xy| ≤ m,

and

|y| ≥ 1,

such that

w_i = xyⁱz — Eq. (4.2)

is also in L for all i = 0, 1, 2, …

To recognize an infinite language, a finite automaton must “pump” or repeat some portion of its states, and that's the function of yⁱ (notation for some string y repeated i times).

Very nearly all proofs involving the pumping lemma involve proof by contradiction. On page 117, the author proves that the language L = { aⁿbⁿ : n ≥ 0 }—i.e., strings of the form aaa…bbb… where the all-a and all-b substrings are equal in length—is not regular:

Assume that L is regular, so that the pumping lemma must hold. We do not know the value of m, but whatever it is, we can always choose n = m. Therefore, the substring y must consist entirely of a's. Suppose |y| = k. Then the string obtained by using i = 0 in Equation (4.2) is

w₀ = a^m-kb^m

and is clearly not in L. This contradicts the pumping lemma and thereby indicates that the assumption that L is regular must be false.

Other examples of languages that are not regular:

• L = { ww^R : w ∈ Σ^* } (palindromes)
• L = { w ∈ Σ^* : n_a(*w*) < n_b(*w*) } (a's fewer than b's)
• L = { a^n! : n ≥ 0 }
• L = { aⁿb^l : n ≠ l }
• L = { aⁿb^l : n + l is a prime number }

It turns out that what we loosely call regular expressions are considerably more powerful: matching regular expressions with backreferences is NP-hard!