I am analyzing the regularity of the following two languages defined over the alphabet $\Sigma = \{a, b\}$:$$L_1 = \{ \alpha \beta \alpha \mid \alpha \in \{a, b\}^+ \text{ AND } \beta \in \{a, b\}^+ \}$$$$L_2 = \{ \alpha \beta \alpha \mid \alpha \in \{a\}^+ \text{ AND } \beta \in \{a, b\}^+ \}$$The question asks which of the following statements is CORRECT:
(A) Both L1 and L2 are regular languages.
(B) L1 is a regular language but L2 is not a regular language.
(C) L1 is not a regular language but L2 is a regular language.
(D) Neither L1 nor L2 is a regular language.
My Analysis and Confusion:
My understanding is that both languages require a comparison of an arbitrary-length prefix with an identical suffix, separated by a non-empty string, which typically makes a language non-regular as it requires infinite memory.
For $L1$ and $L2$: I considered the intersection of both languages with the regular language $R=a∗ba∗$.$$L_1 \cap R = L_2 \cap R = \{ a^k b a^k \mid k \ge 1 \}$$Since $a^k b a^k$ (for $k \ge 1$) is a standard example of a non-regular language (proven using the Pumping Lemma), and the intersection of a regular language with $L$ is regular if $L$ is regular, this strongly suggests that both $L_1$ and $L_2$ are non-regular. Based on this, my derived answer is (D).
The Official Answer:
The official provided answer for this question is (C), which claims that:$L_1$ is not a regular language. (This aligns with my analysis). $L_2$ is a regular language. (This contradicts my analysis). I am seeking clarification. Is my analysis of $L_2$ being non-regular incorrect? If $L_2$ is indeed regular, how can it be proven? I suspect there might be a simpler equivalent definition of $L_2$ that I am overlooking, or a flaw in using the intersection method for $L_2$.