Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The pumping lemma is often used to prove that a particular language is non-regular: a proof by contradiction may consist of exhibiting a string (of the required length) in the language that lacks the property outlined in the pumping lemma. Example: The language = {:} over the alphabet = {,} can be shown to be non-regular as follows:
The pumping lemma for context-free languages (called just "the pumping lemma" for the rest of this article) describes a property that all context-free languages are guaranteed to have. The property is a property of all strings in the language that are of length at least p {\displaystyle p} , where p {\displaystyle p} is a constant—called the ...
Hi Jochen Burghardt, the example of a non-regular language given to satisfy the non-generalised Pumping Lemma does not satisfy it. For example the word abc can be pumped down to bc which is not in the given language. This is a deep flaw in the example that cannot be easily fixed - as it relies on m ≥ 1.
Ogden's lemma is often stated in the following form, which can be obtained by "forgetting about" the grammar, and concentrating on the language itself: If a language L is context-free, then there exists some number (where p may or may not be a pumping length) such that for any string s of length at least p in L and every way of "marking" p or more of the positions in s, s can be written as
Pumping lemma for context-free languages, the fact that all sufficiently long strings in such a language have a pair of substrings that can be repeated arbitrarily many times, usually used to prove that certain languages are not context-free; Pumping lemma for indexed languages; Pumping lemma for regular tree languages
To convert a grammar to Chomsky normal form, a sequence of simple transformations is applied in a certain order; this is described in most textbooks on automata theory. [4]: 87–94 [5] [6] [7] The presentation here follows Hopcroft, Ullman (1979), but is adapted to use the transformation names from Lange, Leiß (2009).
(1) If is regular, construct a minimal DFA to accept it. Clearly, if x , y {\displaystyle x,y} end up in the same state after running through the DFA, then x ∼ L y {\displaystyle x\sim _{L}y} , thus the number of equivalence classes of ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} is at most the number of DFA states, which must be finite.
In the theory of formal languages, the interchange lemma states a necessary condition for a language to be context-free, just like the pumping lemma for context-free languages.