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 ...
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
Pumping lemma sometimes called the Bar-Hillel lemma; Microeconomics ... An example of a covering described by the Knaster–Kuratowski–Mazurkiewicz lemma.
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.
The simplest example: S → aSb S → ab. This grammar generates the language {:}, which is not regular (according to the pumping lemma for regular languages). The special character ε stands for the empty string. By changing the above grammar to S → aSb S → ε
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
Based on this relation, whose lack of transitivity [note 3] causes considerable technical problems, they give an O(n 4) [note 4] algorithm to construct from F a cover automaton A of minimal state count. Moreover, for union, intersection, and difference of two finite languages they provide corresponding operations on their cover automata.