DOCSLIB.ORG

CS 236 Language and Computation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CS 236 Language and Computation CS 236 Language and Computation Course Notes Sect 2.2: The Chomsky Hierarchy and Regular Languages Anton Setzer (Based on a book draft by J. V. Tucker and K. Stephenson) Dept. of Computer Science, Swansea University http://www.cs.swan.ac.uk/∼csetzer/lectures/ languageComputation/09/index.html December 12, 2009 CS 236 Sect. 2.2 1/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) 2.2.2. Regular Languages (12.2) 2.2.3. Regular Expressions (13.8) CS 236 Sect. 2.2 2/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Chomsky Hierarchy The :::::::::::Chomsky :::::::::::hierarchy is the classification of grammars by means of 4 properties of its production rules: I Unrestricted grammars. I The limit of grammars. I Context-sensitive grammars. I It's usually an accident if a grammar of a language is context-sensitive. C and C++ have some context-sensitive aspects (dealt with by selecting correct strings after the parsing). I Context-free grammars. I Easy to understand and supported by parse generators. I In language design one aims at languages having an underlying context-free grammar. I Regular grammars. I Simple to parse. Used for dividing the input stream of characters into tokens. CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 3/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Unrestricted Grammars Let in the following four definitions G = (T ; N; S; P) be a grammar. Definition Any grammar G is of :::::Type::0 or ::::::::::::::unrestricted, so any production u −! v for u 2 (T [ N)+, v 2 (T [ N)∗ are allowed. CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 4/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Context-Sensitive Grammars Definition Any grammar G is of :::::Type::1 or :::::::::::::::::::context-sensitive, if all its productions have the form uAv −! uwv where A 2 N is a nonterminal, which rewrites to a non-empty string w 2 (T [ N)+, but only where A is in the context of strings u; v 2 (T [ N)∗. Furthermore a production A −! is allowed, but only if A does not occur in the right hand side of any production. CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 5/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Context-Free Grammars Definition Any grammar G is of :::::Type::2 or ::::::::::::::context-free, if all its productions have the form A −! w where A 2 N is a nonterminal, which rewrites to a string w 2 (T [ N)∗. CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 6/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Regular Grammars Definition 1. A grammar G is :::::::::::left-linear, iff all its productions have the form A −! Ba or A −! a or A −! 2. A grammar G is ::::::::::::right-linear, iff all its productions have the form A −! aB or A −! a or A −! 3. A grammar G is of :::::Type::3 or ::::::::regular, iff it is left-linear or right-linear In the above we have A; B 2 N are nonterminal and a 2 T . Note that in a regular grammar either all productions must be left-linear or all productions must be right-linear, so no mixing of the left-linear and right-linear is allowed. CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 7/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) A Hierarchy of Languages Definition ∗ A language L ⊆ T is ::::::::::::::unrestricted, :::::::::::::::::::context-sensitive, ::::::::::::::context-free, or ::::::::regular, iff there exists a grammar G of the relevant type such that L(G) = L. Remark For any L we have L regular ) L context-free ) L context-sensitive ) L unrestricted. CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 8/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Hierarchy of Languages We have that I every regular grammar is context-free. I every context-sensitive grammar is an unrestricted grammar. However not every context-free grammar is context sensitive, since context-sensitive languages allow only productions A −! if A does not occur at the right hand side of a production. (Otherwise all unrestricted languages would be context-sensitive). However one can construct from a context-free grammar a context-free grammar of the same language, which has only productions A −! , if A does not occur on the right hand side of a production. This grammar is therefore context-sensitive as well. CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 9/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Hierarchy of Languages context context-free sensitive unrestricted regular CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 10/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Examples of Equivalent Grammars We give grammars of each type for defining the language 2n La := fai j i is even g CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 11/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Unrestricted Grammar for La2n 2n grammar G unrestricted;a terminals a nonterminals S start symbol S productions S −! S −! aa a −! aaa CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 12/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Context-Sensitive Grammar for La2n 2n grammar G context−sensitive;a terminals a nonterminals S; T start symbol S productions S −! S −! aa S −! aaT aT −! aTaa aT −! aaa CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 13/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Context-Free Grammar for La2n 2n grammar G context−free;a terminals a nonterminals S start symbol S productions S −! S −! aSa CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 14/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Regular Grammar for La2n 2n grammar G regular;a terminals a nonterminals S; A start symbol S productions S −! S −! aA A −! aS CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 15/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Example 1 (Grammars of the Levels of the Chomsky Hierarchy) grammar G terminals a; b nonterminals S start symbol S productions S −! aSa; S −! bSb; S −! L(G) = ? G is of which type? CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 16/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Example 2 grammar G terminals a nonterminals S start symbol S productions S −! a; S −! aS L(G) = ? G is of which type? CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 17/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Example 3 grammar G terminals a; b nonterminals S start symbol S productions S −! ab; S −! aSb L(G) = ? G is of which type? CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 18/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Example 4 n n n grammar G a b c terminals a; b nonterminals S start symbol S productions S −! aSBC; S −! aBC; CB −! HB; HB −! HC; HC −! BC; aB −! ab; bB −! bb; bC −! bc; cC −! cc: L(G) = fanbncn j n ≥ 1g. G is of which type? CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 19/ 65 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) Examples context context-free sensitive unrestricted regular n n n fa b j fa j n ≥ 1g n ≥ 1g fanbncn j n ≥ 1g CS 236 Sect. 2.2.1 20/ 65 2.2.2. Regular Languages (12.2) 2.2.1. Chomsky Hierarchy (12.1) 2.2.2. Regular Languages (12.2) 2.2.3. Regular Expressions (13.8) CS 236 Sect. 2.2.2 21/ 65 2.2.2. Regular Languages (12.2) Finite languages are regular grammar G ab;aabb;aaabbb terminals a; b nonterminals S start symbol S productions S −! ab S −! aabb S −! aaabbb The above grammar is not regular, since there can only be one terminal in the right hand string. But we can amend this: CS 236 Sect. 2.2.2 22/ 65 2.2.2. Regular Languages (12.2) Finite languages are regular grammar G ab;aabb;aaabbb terminals a; b nonterminals S; S1; S2; S3; S4; S5; S6; S7; S8; S9 start symbol S productions S −! aS1, S1 −! b S −! aS2, S2 −! aS3, S3 −! bS4, S4 −! b S −! aS5, S5 −! aS6, S6 −! aS7, S7 −! bS8, S8 −! bS9, S9 −! b CS 236 Sect. 2.2.2 23/ 65 2.2.2. Regular Languages (12.2) Observation The above can be generalised to the following Lemma 1. Assume a grammar G which has only productions of the form A −! Bw or A −! w 0 for some w 2 T +, w 0 2 T ∗,A; B 2 N. Then L(G) = L(G 0) for some left-linear grammar G 0. 2. Assume a grammar G which has only productions of the form A −! wB or A −! w 0 for some w 2 T +, w 0 2 T ∗,A; B 2 N. Then L(G) = L(G 0) for some right-linear grammar G 0. CS 236 Sect. 2.2.2 24/ 65 2.2.2. Regular Languages (12.2) Proof I In (2) replace I Productions A −! a1a2 ··· anB with n ≥ 2 by A −! a1A1, A1 −! a2A2 ;:::; An−1 −! anB for some new nonterminals Ai . I Productions A −! a1a2 ··· an with n ≥ 2 by A −! a1A1, A1 −! a2A2 ;:::; An−1 −! an for some new nonterminals Ai . I (1) is proved similarly. CS 236 Sect. 2.2.2 25/ 65 2.2.2. Regular Languages (12.2) Lemma Lemma All finite languages are regular. Proof: Extend the example above. CS 236 Sect. 2.2.2 26/ 65 2.2.2. Regular Languages (12.2) A Left-Linear Grammar for ambn The following left-linear grammar generates fambn j m; n ≥ 1g. m n grammar G left−linear;a b terminals a; b nonterminals S; T start symbol S productions S −! Sb S −! Tb T −! Ta T −! a CS 236 Sect. 2.2.2 27/ 65 2.2.2. Regular Languages (12.2) A Right-Linear Grammar for ambn The following right-linear grammar generates fambn j m; n ≥ 1g: m n grammar G right−linear;a b terminals a; b nonterminals S; T start symbol S productions S −! aS S −! aT T −! bT T −! b CS 236 Sect.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grammars (Cfls & Cfgs) Reading: Chapter 5
    Context-Free Languages & Grammars (CFLs & CFGs) Reading: Chapter 5 1 Not all languages are regular So what happens to the languages which are not regular? Can we still come up with a language recognizer? i.e., something that will accept (or reject) strings that belong (or do not belong) to the language? 2 Context-Free Languages A language class larger than the class of regular languages Supports natural, recursive notation called “context- free grammar” Applications: Context- Parse trees, compilers Regular free XML (FA/RE) (PDA/CFG) 3 An Example A palindrome is a word that reads identical from both ends E.g., madam, redivider, malayalam, 010010010 Let L = { w | w is a binary palindrome} Is L regular? No. Proof: N N (assuming N to be the p/l constant) Let w=0 10 k By Pumping lemma, w can be rewritten as xyz, such that xy z is also L (for any k≥0) But |xy|≤N and y≠ + ==> y=0 k ==> xy z will NOT be in L for k=0 ==> Contradiction 4 But the language of palindromes… is a CFL, because it supports recursive substitution (in the form of a CFG) This is because we can construct a “grammar” like this: Same as: 1. A ==> A => 0A0 | 1A1 | 0 | 1 | Terminal 2. A ==> 0 3. A ==> 1 Variable or non-terminal Productions 4. A ==> 0A0 5. A ==> 1A1 How does this grammar work? 5 How does the CFG for palindromes work? An input string belongs to the language (i.e., accepted) iff it can be generated by the CFG G: Example: w=01110 A => 0A0 | 1A1 | 0 | 1 | G can generate w as follows: Generating a string from a grammar: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Language and Automata Theory (CS21004)
    Context Free Grammar Normal Forms Derivations and Ambiguities Pumping lemma for CFLs PDA Parsing CFL Properties Formal Language and Automata Theory (CS21004) Soumyajit Dey CSE, IIT Kharagpur Context Free Formal Language and Automata Theory Grammar (CS21004) Normal Forms Derivations and Ambiguities Pumping lemma Soumyajit Dey for CFLs CSE, IIT Kharagpur PDA Parsing CFL Properties DPDA, DCFL Membership CSL Soumyajit Dey CSE, IIT Kharagpur Formal Language and Automata Theory (CS21004) Context Free Grammar Normal Forms Derivations and Ambiguities Pumping lemma for CFLs PDA Parsing CFL Properties Formal Language and Automata Announcements Theory (CS21004) Soumyajit Dey CSE, IIT Kharagpur Context Free Grammar Normal Forms Derivations and The slide is just a short summary Ambiguities Follow the discussion and the boardwork Pumping lemma for CFLs Solve problems (apart from those we dish out in class) PDA Parsing CFL Properties DPDA, DCFL Membership CSL Soumyajit Dey CSE, IIT Kharagpur Formal Language and Automata Theory (CS21004) Context Free Grammar Normal Forms Derivations and Ambiguities Pumping lemma for CFLs PDA Parsing CFL Properties Formal Language and Automata Table of Contents Theory (CS21004) Soumyajit Dey 1 Context Free Grammar CSE, IIT Kharagpur 2 Normal Forms Context Free Grammar 3 Derivations and Ambiguities Normal Forms 4 Derivations and Pumping lemma for CFLs Ambiguities 5 Pumping lemma PDA for CFLs 6 Parsing PDA Parsing 7 CFL Properties CFL Properties DPDA, DCFL 8 DPDA, DCFL Membership 9 Membership CSL 10 CSL Soumyajit Dey CSE,
    [Show full text]
  • (Or Simply a Grammar) Is (V, T, P, S), Where (I) V Is a Finite Nonempty Set Whose Elements Are Called Variables
    UNIT - III GRAMMARS FORMALISM Definition of Grammar: A phrase-Structure grammar (or Simply a grammar) is (V, T, P, S), Where (i) V is a finite nonempty set whose elements are called variables. (ii) T is finite nonempty set, whose elements are called terminals. (iii) S is a special variable (i.e an element of V ) called the start symbol, and (iv) P is a finite set whose elements are ,where and are strings on V T, has at least one symbol from V. Elements of P are called Productions or production rules or rewriting rules. 1. Regular Grammar: A grammar G=(V,T,P,S) is said to be Regular grammar if the productions are in either right-linear grammar or left-linear grammar. ABx|xB|x 1.1 Right –Linear Grammar: A grammar G=(V,T,P,S) is said to be right-linear if all productions are of the form AxB or Ax. Where A,B V and x T*. 1.2 Left –Linear Grammar: A grammar G=(V,T,P,S) is said to be Left-linear grammar if all productions are of the form ABx or Ax Example: 1. Construct the regular grammar for regular expression r=0(10)*. Sol: Right-Linear Grammar: S0A A10A| Computer Science & Engineering Formal Languages and Automata Theory Left-Linear Grammar: SS10|0 2. Equivalence of NFAs and Regular Grammar 2.1 Construction of -NFA from a right –linear grammar: Let G=(V,T,P,S) be a right-linear grammar .we construct an NFA with -moves, M=(Q,T, ,[S],[ ]) that simulates deviation in ‘G’ Q consists of the symbols [ ] such that is S or a(not necessarily proper)suffix of some Right-hand side of a production in P.
    [Show full text]
  • A Complex Measure for Linear Grammars‡
    1 Demonstratio Mathematica, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2005, pp 761-775 A Complex Measure for Linear Grammars‡ Ishanu Chattopadhyay Asok Ray [email protected] [email protected] The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802, USA Keywords: Language Measure; Discrete Event Supervisory Control; Linear Grammars Abstract— The signed real measure of regular languages, introduced supervisors that satisfy their own respective specifications. Such and validated in recent literature, has been the driving force for a partially ordered set of sublanguages requires a quantitative quantitative analysis and synthesis of discrete-event supervisory (DES) measure for total ordering of their respective performance. To control systems dealing with finite state automata (equivalently, regular languages). However, this approach relies on memoryless address this issue, a signed real measures of regular languages state-based tools for supervisory control synthesis and may become has been reported in literature [7] to provide a mathematical inadequate if the transitions in the plant dynamics cannot be captured framework for quantitative comparison of controlled sublanguages by finitely many states. From this perspective, the measure of regular of the unsupervised plant language. This measure provides a languages needs to be extended to that of non-regular languages, total ordering of the sublanguages of the unsupervised plant such as Petri nets or other higher level languages in the Chomsky hierarchy. Measures for non-regular languages has not apparently and formalizes a procedure for synthesis of DES controllers for been reported in open literature and is an open area of research. finite state automaton plants, as an alternative to the procedure This paper introduces a complex measure of linear context free of Ramadge and Wonham [5].
    [Show full text]
  • Automaty a Gramatiky
    Context-Free Grammars and Languages More powerful than finite automata. Used to describe document formats, via DTD - document-type definition used in XML (extensible markup language) We introduce context-free grammar notation parse tree. There exist an ’pushdown automaton’ that describes all and only the context-free languages. Will be described later. Automata and Grammars Grammars 6 March 30, 2017 1 / 39 Palindrome example A string the same forward and backward, like otto or Madam, I’m Adam. w is a palindrome iff w = w R . The language Lpal of palindromes is not a regular language. A context-free grammar for We use the pumping lemma. palindromes If Lpal is a regular language, let n be the 1. P → λ asssociated constant, and consider: 2. P → 0 w = 0n10n. 3. P → 1 For regular L, we can break w = xyz such that y consists of one or more 0’s from the 4. P → 0P0 5. P → 1P1 first group. Thus, xz would be also in Lpal if Lpal were regular. A context-free grammar (right) consists of one or more variables, that represent classes of strings, i.e., languages. Automata and Grammars Grammars 6 March 30, 2017 2 / 39 Definition (Grammar) A Grammar G = (V , T , P, S) consists of Finite set of terminal symbols (terminals) T , like {0, 1} in the previous example. Finite set of variables V (nonterminals,syntactic categories), like {P} in the previous example. Start symbol S is a variable that represents the language being defined. P in the previous example. Finite set of rules (productions) P that represent the recursive definition of the language.
    [Show full text]
  • A Turing Machine
    1/45 Turing Machines and General Grammars Alan Turing (1912 – 1954) 2/45 Turing Machines (TM) Gist: The most powerful computational model. Finite State Control Tape: Read-write head a1 a2 … ai … an … moves Note: = blank 3/45 Turing Machines: Definition Definition: A Turing machine (TM) is a 6-tuple M = (Q, , , R, s, F), where • Q is a finite set of states • is an input alphabet • is a tape alphabet; ; • R is a finite set of rules of the form: pa qbt, where p, q Q, a, b , t {S, R, L} • s Q is the start state • F Q is a set of final states Mathematical note: • Mathematically, R is a relation from Q to Q {S, R, L} • Instead of (pa, qbt), we write pa qbt 4/45 Interpretation of Rules • pa qbS: If the current state and tape symbol are p and a, respectively, then replace a with b, change p to q, and keep the head Stationary. p q x a y x b y • pa qbR: If the current state and tape symbol are p and a, respectively, then replace a with b, shift the head a square Right, and change p to q. p q x a y x b y • pa qbL: If the current state and tape symbol are p and a, respectively, then replace a with b, shift the head a square Left, and change p to q. p q x a y x b y 5/45 Graphical Representation q represents q Q s represents the initial state s Q f represents a final state f F p a/b, S q denotes pa qbS R p a/b, R q denotes pa qbR R p a/b, L q denotes pa qbL R 6/45 Turing Machine: Example 1/2 M = (Q, , , R, s, F) where: 6/45 Turing Machine: Example 1/2 M = (Q, , , R, s, F) where: • Q = {s, p, q, f}; s f p q 6/45 Turing
    [Show full text]
  • Context-Free Languages & Grammars (Cfls & Cfgs)
    Context-Free Languages & Grammars (CFLs & CFGs) Reading: Chapter 5 1 Not all languages are regular n So what happens to the languages which are not regular? n Can we still come up with a language recognizer? n i.e., something that will accept (or reject) strings that belong (or do not belong) to the language? 2 Context-Free Languages n A language class larger than the class of regular languages n Supports natural, recursive notation called “context- free grammar” n Applications: Context- n Parse trees, compilers Regular free n XML (FA/RE) (PDA/CFG) 3 An Example n A palindrome is a word that reads identical from both ends n E.g., madam, redivider, malayalam, 010010010 n Let L = { w | w is a binary palindrome} n Is L regular? n No. n Proof: N N (assuming N to be the p/l constant) n Let w=0 10 k n By Pumping lemma, w can be rewritten as xyz, such that xy z is also L (for any k≥0) n But |xy|≤N and y≠e + n ==> y=0 k n ==> xy z will NOT be in L for k=0 n ==> Contradiction 4 But the language of palindromes… is a CFL, because it supports recursive substitution (in the form of a CFG) n This is because we can construct a “grammar” like this: Same as: 1. A ==> e A => 0A0 | 1A1 | 0 | 1 | e Terminal 2. A ==> 0 3. A ==> 1 Variable or non-terminal Productions 4. A ==> 0A0 5. A ==> 1A1 How does this grammar work? 5 How does the CFG for palindromes work? An input string belongs to the language (i.e., accepted) iff it can be generated by the CFG G: n Example: w=01110 A => 0A0 | 1A1 | 0 | 1 | e n G can generate w as follows: Generating a string from a grammar: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Pushdown Automata 1 Formal Definition
    Abstract. This chapter introduces Pushdown Au- finite tomata, and presents their basic theory. The two control δ top A language families defined by pda (acceptance by final state, resp. by empty stack) are shown to be equal. p stack The pushdown languages are shown to be equal to . the context-free languages. Closure properties of the . context-free languages are given that can be obtained ···a ··· using this characterization. Determinism is considered, input tape and it is formally shown that deterministic pda are less powerfull than the general class. Figure 1: Pushdown automaton Pushdown Automata input. Otherwise, it reaches the end of the input, which is then accepted only if the stack is empty. A pushdown automaton is like a finite state automa- ton that has a pushdown stack as additional mem- ory. Thus, it is a finite state device equipped with a 1 Formal Definition one-way input tape and a ‘last-in first-out’ external memory that can hold unbounded amounts of infor- The formal specification of a pushdown automaton mation; each individual stack element contains finite extends that of a finite state automaton by adding information. The usual stack access is respected: the an alphabet of stack symbols. For technical reasons automaton is able to see (test) only the topmost sym- the initial stack is not empty, but it contains a single bol of the stack and act based on its value, it is able symbol which is also specified. Finally the transition to pop symbols from the top of the stack, and to push relation must also account for stack inspection and symbols onto the top of the stack.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Context-Free Grammars And
    LIACS — Second Course ... IV Chapter 4 Context-free Grammars and Lan- guages IV 1 context-free languages 4.0 Review 4.1 Closure properties counting letters 4.2 Unary context-free languages 4.6 Parikh’s theorem pumping & swapping 4.3 Ogden’s lemma 4.4 Applications of Ogden’s lemma 4.5 The interchange lemma subfamilies 4.7 Deterministic context-free languages 4.8 Linear languages 4.0 Review ⊲ The book uses a transition funtion ∗ δ : Q × (Σ ∪{ǫ}) × Γ → 2Q×Γ , i.e., a function into (finite) subsets of Q × Γ∗. My personal favourite is a (finite) transi- tion relation δ ⊆ Q × (Σ ∪{ǫ}) × Γ × Q × Γ∗. In the former one writes δ(p, a, A) ∋ (q,α) and in the latter (p,a,A,q,α) ∈ δ. The meaning is the same. ⊳ IV 2 pushdown automaton (syntax) 7-tuple finite top control δ A = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q0, Z0, F ) A Q states p, q p q0 ∈ Q initial state . F ⊆ Q final states ···a ··· Σ input alphabet a,b w,x Γ stack alphabet A,B α input tape stack Z0 ∈ Γ initial stack symbol transition function (finite) ∗ δ : Q × (Σ ∪{ǫ}) × Γ → 2Q×Γ from to ( p a A ) ∋ ( q α ) read pop push before after | {z } | {z } IV 3 pushdown automaton (semantics) Q × Σ∗ × Γ∗ configuration β p A = p state . Aγ ( p, w, β ) w input, unread part ···a ··· β stack, top-to-bottom w = ax move (step) ⊢A | {z } ( p, ax, Aγ ) ⊢A ( q,x, αγ ) iff ( p, a, A, q, α ) ∈ δ, x ∈ Σ∗ and γ ∈ Γ∗ α q computation ⊢∗ αγ A .
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Language and Automata Theory (CS21 004) Course Coverage
    Formal Language and Automata Theory (CS21 004) Course Coverage Class: CSE 2 nd Year 4th January, 201 0 ( 2 hours) : Tutorial-1 + Alphabet: Σ; Γ; , string over Σ, Σ 0 = " , Σ n = x : x = a a a ; a Σ; 1 i n , Σ ? = f g f 1 2 n i 2 6 6 g Σ n, Σ + = Σ ? " , ( Σ ?; co n; ") is a monoid. Language L over the alphabet Σ is a subset of n N nf g 2 ΣS?, L Σ ∗ . ⊆ Σ ? N The size of Σ ∗ is countably infinite , so the collection of all languages over Σ, 2 2 , is uncountably infinite . So every language cannot have finite description. ' 5 th January, 201 0 ( 1 hour) : No set is equinumerous to its power-set ( Cantor) . The proof is by reductio ad absurdum ( reduc- tion to a contradiction) . An one to one map from A to 2 A is easy to get, a ¡ a . f g Let A be a set and there is an onto map ( surjection ) f from A to 2 A. We consider the set ¢ A A B = x A: x f( x) 2 . As f: A 2 is a surjection, there is an element a0 A so that f 2 2 ¢ g ! 2 f( a ) = 2 A, but then a f( a ) = . So, a B, and B is a non-empty subset of A. So, there 0 ; 2 0 0 ; 0 2 is an element a1 A such that f( a1 ) = B. Does a1 f( a1 ) = B? This leads to contradiction. ¢ 2 ¢ 2 If a1 f( a1 ) = B, then a1 B, if a1 f( a1 ) = B, then a1 B i.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Languages and Automata
    Formal Languages and Automata Stephan Schulz & Jan Hladik [email protected] [email protected] L ⌃⇤ ✓ with contributions from David Suendermann 1 Table of Contents Formal Grammars and Context-Free Introduction Languages Basics of formal languages Formal Grammars The Chomsky Hierarchy Regular Languages and Finite Automata Right-linear Grammars Regular Expressions Context-free Grammars Finite Automata Push-Down Automata Non-Determinism Properties of Context-free Regular expressions and Finite Languages Automata Turing Machines and Languages of Type Minimisation 1 and 0 Equivalence Turing Machines The Pumping Lemma Unrestricted Grammars Properties of regular languages Linear Bounded Automata Scanners and Flex Properties of Type-0-languages 2 Outline Introduction Basics of formal languages Regular Languages and Finite Automata Scanners and Flex Formal Grammars and Context-Free Languages Turing Machines and Languages of Type 1 and 0 3 Introduction I Stephan Schulz I Dipl.-Inform., U. Kaiserslautern, 1995 I Dr. rer. nat., TU Munchen,¨ 2000 I Visiting professor, U. Miami, 2002 I Visiting professor, U. West Indies, 2005 I Lecturer (Hildesheim, Offenburg, . ) since 2009 I Industry experience: Building Air Traffic Control systems I System engineer, 2005 I Project manager, 2007 I Product Manager, 2013 I Professor, DHBW Stuttgart, 2014 Research: Logic & Automated Reasoning 4 Introduction I Jan Hladik I Dipl.-Inform.: RWTH Aachen, 2001 I Dr. rer. nat.: TU Dresden, 2007 I Industry experience: SAP Research I Work in publicly funded research projects I Collaboration with SAP product groups I Supervision of Bachelor, Master, and PhD students I Professor: DHBW Stuttgart, 2014 Research: Semantic Web, Semantic Technologies, Automated Reasoning 5 Literature I Scripts I The most up-to-date version of this document as well as auxiliary material will be made available online at http://wwwlehre.dhbw-stuttgart.de/ ˜sschulz/fla2015.html and http://wwwlehre.dhbw-stuttgart.de/ ˜hladik/FLA I Books I John E.
    [Show full text]
  • On Chomsky Hierarchy of Palindromic Languages∗
    Acta Cybernetica 22 (2016) 703{713. On Chomsky Hierarchy of Palindromic Languages∗ P´alD¨om¨osi,y Szil´ardFazekas,z and Masami Itox Abstract The characterization of the structure of palindromic regular and palindromic context-free languages is described by S. Horv´ath,J. Karhum¨aki, and J. Kleijn in 1987. In this paper alternative proofs are given for these characterizations. Keywords: palindromic formal languages, combinatorics of words and lan- guages 1 Introduction The study of combinatorial properties of words is a well established field and its results show up in a variety of contexts in computer science and related disciplines. In particular, formal language theory has a rich connection with combinatorics on words, even at the most basic level. Consider, for example, the various pumping lemmata for the different language classes of the Chomsky hierarchy, where ap- plicability of said lemmata boils down in most cases to showing that the resulting words, which are rich in repetitions, cannot be elements of a certain language. After repetitions, the most studied special words are arguably the palindromes. These are sequences, which are equal to their mirror image. Apart from their combi- natorial appeal, palindromes come up frequently in the context of algorithms for DNA sequences or when studying string operations inspired by biological processes, e.g., hairpin completion [2], palindromic completion [10], pseudopalindromic com- pletion [3], etc. Said string operations are often considered as language generating formalisms, either by applying them to all words in a given language or by apply- ing them iteratively to words. One of the main questions, when considering the languages arising from these operations, is how they relate to the classes defined by the Chomsky hierarchy.
    [Show full text]