953 research outputs found

    The equivalence problem for LL- and LR-regular grammars

    Get PDF
    It will be shown that the equivalence problem for LL-regular grammars is decidable. Apart from extending the known result for LL(k) grammar equivalence to LLregular grammar equivalence, we obtain an alternative proof of the decidability of LL(k) equivalence. The equivalence prob]em for LL-regular grammars has been studied before, but not solved. Our proof that this equivalence problem is decidable is simple. However, this is mainly because we can reduce the problem to the equivalence problem for real-time strict deterministic grammlars, which is decidable

    On the Relation between Context-Free Grammars and Parsing Expression Grammars

    Full text link
    Context-Free Grammars (CFGs) and Parsing Expression Grammars (PEGs) have several similarities and a few differences in both their syntax and semantics, but they are usually presented through formalisms that hinder a proper comparison. In this paper we present a new formalism for CFGs that highlights the similarities and differences between them. The new formalism borrows from PEGs the use of parsing expressions and the recognition-based semantics. We show how one way of removing non-determinism from this formalism yields a formalism with the semantics of PEGs. We also prove, based on these new formalisms, how LL(1) grammars define the same language whether interpreted as CFGs or as PEGs, and also show how strong-LL(k), right-linear, and LL-regular grammars have simple language-preserving translations from CFGs to PEGs

    A survey of normal form covers for context-free grammars

    Get PDF
    An overview is given of cover results for normal forms of context-free grammars. The emphasis in this paper is on the possibility of constructing É›-free grammars, non-left-recursive grammars and grammars in Greibach normal form. Among others it is proved that any É›-free context-free grammar can be right covered with a context-free grammar in Greibach normal form. All the cover results concerning the É›-free grammars, the non-left-recursive grammars and the grammars in Greibach normal form are listed, with respect to several types of covers, in a cover-table

    Cover results and normal forms

    Get PDF
    The purpose of this paper was to sketch an area of problems for the concept of cover. We showed that in spite of some remarks in the literature the problem of covering (unambiguous and -free) cfg's with cfg's in GNF is open. Moreover we gave some properties of covers and we showed a relation between covers and parsability

    Generalizing input-driven languages: theoretical and practical benefits

    Get PDF
    Regular languages (RL) are the simplest family in Chomsky's hierarchy. Thanks to their simplicity they enjoy various nice algebraic and logic properties that have been successfully exploited in many application fields. Practically all of their related problems are decidable, so that they support automatic verification algorithms. Also, they can be recognized in real-time. Context-free languages (CFL) are another major family well-suited to formalize programming, natural, and many other classes of languages; their increased generative power w.r.t. RL, however, causes the loss of several closure properties and of the decidability of important problems; furthermore they need complex parsing algorithms. Thus, various subclasses thereof have been defined with different goals, spanning from efficient, deterministic parsing to closure properties, logic characterization and automatic verification techniques. Among CFL subclasses, so-called structured ones, i.e., those where the typical tree-structure is visible in the sentences, exhibit many of the algebraic and logic properties of RL, whereas deterministic CFL have been thoroughly exploited in compiler construction and other application fields. After surveying and comparing the main properties of those various language families, we go back to operator precedence languages (OPL), an old family through which R. Floyd pioneered deterministic parsing, and we show that they offer unexpected properties in two fields so far investigated in totally independent ways: they enable parsing parallelization in a more effective way than traditional sequential parsers, and exhibit the same algebraic and logic properties so far obtained only for less expressive language families

    On one-way cellular automata with a fixed number of cells

    Get PDF
    We investigate a restricted one-way cellular automaton (OCA) model where the number of cells is bounded by a constant number k, so-called kC-OCAs. In contrast to the general model, the generative capacity of the restricted model is reduced to the set of regular languages. A kC-OCA can be algorithmically converted to a deterministic finite automaton (DFA). The blow-up in the number of states is bounded by a polynomial of degree k. We can exhibit a family of unary languages which shows that this upper bound is tight in order of magnitude. We then study upper and lower bounds for the trade-off when converting DFAs to kC-OCAs. We show that there are regular languages where the use of kC-OCAs cannot reduce the number of states when compared to DFAs. We then investigate trade-offs between kC-OCAs with different numbers of cells and finally treat the problem of minimizing a given kC-OCA

    On non-recursive trade-offs between finite-turn pushdown automata

    Get PDF
    It is shown that between one-turn pushdown automata (1-turn PDAs) and deterministic finite automata (DFAs) there will be savings concerning the size of description not bounded by any recursive function, so-called non-recursive tradeoffs. Considering the number of turns of the stack height as a consumable resource of PDAs, we can show the existence of non-recursive trade-offs between PDAs performing k+ 1 turns and k turns for k >= 1. Furthermore, non-recursive trade-offs are shown between arbitrary PDAs and PDAs which perform only a finite number of turns. Finally, several decidability questions are shown to be undecidable and not semidecidable
    • …
    corecore