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 ...
Thank you for providing an example for the general version of the pumping lemma for regular languages. But one can solve the problem you've mentioned ({ a m b n c n : m≥1 and n≥1 }) using a homomorphism from the alphabet to a set of strings.
Given a language , and a pair of strings and , define a distinguishing extension to be a string such that exactly one of the two strings and belongs to . Define a relation ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} on strings as x ∼ L y {\displaystyle x\;\sim _{L}\ y} if there is no distinguishing extension for x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} .
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
In theoretical computer science and formal language theory, a regular language (also called a rational language) [1] [2] is a formal language that can be defined by a regular expression, in the strict sense in theoretical computer science (as opposed to many modern regular expression engines, which are augmented with features that allow the recognition of non-regular languages).
In contrast to well-formed nested parentheses and square brackets in the previous section, there is no context-free grammar for generating all sequences of two different types of parentheses, each separately balanced disregarding the other, where the two types need not nest inside one another, for example:
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).