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 ...
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
Generally, for any language, the constructed automaton is a state automaton acceptor. However, it does not necessarily have finitely many states. The Myhill–Nerode theorem shows that finiteness is necessary and sufficient for language regularity.
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 set of all context-free languages is identical to the set of languages accepted by pushdown automata, which makes these languages amenable to parsing.Further, for a given CFG, there is a direct way to produce a pushdown automaton for the grammar (and thereby the corresponding language), though going the other way (producing a grammar given an automaton) is not as direct.
Despite Ogden's lemma being a strengthening of the pumping lemma, it is insufficient to fully characterize the class of context-free languages. [2] This is in contrast to the Myhill-Nerode theorem, which unlike the pumping lemma for regular languages is a necessary and sufficient condition for regularity.
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).