toc (2)

Comp 454 Notes Page 1 of 10 April 1, 2014

Notes for Comp 497 (454) Week 10 Today we look at the last two chapters in Part II. Cohen presents some results concerning the two categories of language we have seen so far:

Regular languages (RL). Context-free languages (CFL)

He also looks at some decidability issues. Homework #5 (due April 8, 2014) is at the end of the notes.

Chapter 17 Errata (Chapter 17) p. 383, two lines from the end, make that "(baabbbbb)(a)" p. 392, eight lines from the end, append "in" to the line. p. 398, Question 2(iii) 2x+2z should be 2x+z Earlier we looked at the union, intersection and Kleene closure of regular languages. Let us see what properties context-free languages have both in themselves and in conjunction with regular languages. First, where L1 and L2 are context-free languages, what can we say about (a) Union L1 + L2 (b) Product L1 L2 (c) Closure L1* ? All these turn out to be CFLs. We can prove this construction in a couple of ways:

(1) using grammars for the languages (2) using machines.

We look at grammars here. Cohen also discusses machine-based proofs (a) Union THEOREM 36 If L1 and L2 are context free grammars, so is their union L1+L2


For each of L1 and L2 there is a CFG. Call these grammars CFG1 and CFG2 respectively. We modify CFG1 by adding the subscript 1 to each non-terminal. Thus X becomes X1. Similarly we modify CFG2, adding a different subscript, 2, to each non-terminal. Now we can combine the grammars into a single grammar with no ambiguity. Finally, we add a new rule

S S1 | S2

Thus we have devised a CFG that generates L1 + L2 and shown it is therefore a CFL. (b) Product THEOREM 37 If L1 and L2 are context free grammars, so is their product L1L2 Similar proof to that of Theorem 36, subscripting followed by addition of S S1 S2 (c) Closure THEOREM 38 If L is a CFL then so is L*. Change S to S1 throughout the existing grammar then add new rule S S S1 | What about (d) intersection of two CFL and (e) complement of a CFL? (d) Intersection. THEOREM 39 The intersection of two CFL may or may not be a CFL. We can show that both possibilities exist. For example if both L1 and L2 are regular then L1 L2 is regular by Theorem 12 and therefore a CFL. But what if L1 = anbnam (m,n > 0) (This is CFL; we can easily devise a CFG for it) and L2 = anbmam (m,n > 0) (Also CFL, we can easily devise a CFG for it)


the intersection of these two languages is anbnan which we know is non-context-free. It turns out there is no algorithm to which we can give two CFL which will determine if the intersection is a CFL. (e) Complement THEOREM 40 The complement of a CFL may or may not be a CFL Again we can show that both possibilities exist. If L is regular, and therefore CF, its complement is also regular by Theorem 11 and therefore CF. Consider the following proof by contradiction (that the complement of any CFL is CF). Assume that CFL is CF If L1 and L2 are CFL Then L1 and L2 are CFL (our assumption) Then (L1 + L2) is CFL (Theorem 36) Then (L1 + L2) is CFL (our assumption again) Then L1 L2 is CFL (de Morgans law) But we know that the intersection of two CFL is not always CF so it must be the case that our assumption is wrong and CFL is not always CF. Mixing context-free (CF) and regular languages (RL) Union: CF + RL The union of CF and RL is CF because the RL is CF and we can apply Theorem 36. The union may or may not be regular depending which is the larger language Example 1: PALINDROME + (a+b)* (a+b)* is larger therefore union is regular Example 2: PALINDROME + a* PALINDROME is larger therefore union non-regular


Intersection: CFL RL THEOREM 41 The intersection of a CFL and a RL is always CF. Proof is by construction. Given a PDA for the CFL and a FA for the RL we can construct a PDA for the intersection language. The states of the new PDA are combinations of the old PDA states and the FA states. Cohen sketches the construction logic on pages 394-395 and then shows how to construct a PDA which recognizes the intersection of EQUAL (CFL of strings with same number of as as bs) and ENDA (RL of strings ending in a) Consider also DOUBLEWORD ( = ww where w = (a+b)* ) We know from Chapter 10 that it is non-regular We know from Chapter 16 that it is non-context-free (pumping lemma proof) We can also prove it is non-regular by means of Theorem 41 and careful choice of a regular language with which to intersect it. Consider the intersection of DOUBLEWORD with aa*bb*aa*bb* The intersection is L = ww where w = anbm where m,n > 0 i.e. anbmanbm

But we know this language is non-context-free (see last week) so that means that DOUBLEWORD must be non-context free also otherwise it would contradict Theorem 41.

Chapter 18 Errata (Chapter 18) p. 410, line 10, replace B A by B bAA In this chapter we look at some decidability issues similar to those considered in Chapter 11 for RL. Paraphrasing Cohen, the first group of questions (p. 402) is:

1. Do two CFG define the same language? 2. Is a particular CFG ambiguous? 3. If a CFG is ambiguous, is there another CFG defining the same language that is

not? 4. How can we tell if (CFL) is CF? 5. How can we tell if CFL1 CFL2 is CF? 6. Given CFG1 defining CFL1 and CFG2 defining CFL2 is CFL1 CFL2 empty? 7. Given CFG defining CFL, is CFL equivalent to (a+b)*


These questions are all undecidable no algorithm can exist for any of them. We will see more undecidable questions in Part III of the book. However, there are still some questions concerning CFG that we can answer:

1. (Emptiness) Does a particular CFG generate any words at all? 2. (Finiteness) Given a CFG, is the CFL it generates finite or infinite? 3. (Membership) Given a CFG, is a particular word w in the language it generates?

We will see similar questions to these in Part III. Emptiness THEOREM 42 Given a CFG, there is an algorithm to determine if it generates any words at all We can prove this is true by finding such an algorithm. We can tell if is in the language (we determine if S is nullable?) Assume it is not and convert the grammar to CNF Find a rule of the form N t and back substitute If S is eliminated, we are done, CFG produces a string If we cannot eliminate S, the CFG produces no strings. This is an algorithm because the back substitution must terminate in a finite number of steps there are a finite number of rules in the grammar. The example on page 405 is of a grammar that does produce strings. The example on page 406 is of a grammar that does not produce any strings. If you draw the derivation tree of the page 406 grammar, you will see that we can never get rid of all the nonterminals in a working string. The following Theorem is somewhat related. THEOREM 43 Given a CFG with nonterminal X, there is an algorithm to determine if X is ever used in the generation of words.


Again we can prove this Theorem by devising such an algorithm. We could break the problem down into two subproblems:

(i) can we generate a string of terminals from X? (ii) Can we obtain from S, a working string containing X?

(i) In a copy of the grammar (CFG2) exchange S and X wherever they occur. Now

apply the algorithm of Theorem 42 to CFG2. If CFG2 produces any words then X in CFG produces words.

(ii) Back substitution of X to see if we can obtain a working string from S. In the

example on page 408 X can be produced from S if A can be produced from S (second rule). A can be produced from S according to the first rule so X can be in a working string from S

Finiteness THEOREM 44 There is an algorithm to decide if a given CFG generates a finite or an infinite language. Again the proof is to construct such an algorithm. Note that if any word in the language is long enough to apply the pumping lemma to we can produce an infinite language. If the language is infinite there must be some words long enough to apply the pumping lemma to. So we need to determine if the pumping lemma can be applied. We need to see if there is a self-embedded nonterminal that is involved in the derivation of words in the language. Algorithm

(1) eliminate useless nonterminals from the grammar (see Theorem 43) (2) back substitution similar to Theorem 43 to see if there is a self-embedded

(directly or indirectly) nonterminal. Example on p. 410-411 Membership We would like to be able to determine if the language defined by a particular CFG contains a particular word w.


THEOREM 45 Given a CFG and string x (over the same alphabet), we can determine if x can be generated by the CFG. Once more the proof of the algorithm is the demonstration that an algorithm exists to answer the question. The algorithm is the CYK algorithm (p. 410). We assume the CFG is in CNF We wish to determine which

substrings of x = x1 x2 ... xn are derivable

from which nonterminals in the grammar S, N1, N2, ... NM

The substrings of length 1 are easy to identify because they are on the RHS of rules of the form N t. For each substring of length 1 we have a list of the nonterminals that can produce it. For a string of length 2 e.g. xixj to be producable

xi must be producable from Np, xj must be producable from Nq and there is a rule Nr Np Nq.

For each producable substring of length 2 we have a list of the nonterminals (Nr) that can produce it. Similarly, we can determine which substrings of length 3 are producable, then which substrings of length 4 and so on. Eventually, we will consider the (sub)strings of length n (the length of the word of interest). If S is among the nonterminals that can produce it then x is in the language. Because the string x is finite in length, this algorithm is finite. Parsing Simple Arithmetic In chapter 3 we had a simple (recursive) grammar (AE) for arithmetic expressions. However, it did not reflect the different operator precedences. A better grammar PLUS-TIMES is given on Page 414. It distinguishes between a lower precedence operator (+) and a higher precedence operator (*). We can easily extend the grammar to include subtraction and division operators. We can also extend he grammar to include operators with precedence greater than * (for example exponentiation) and operators with precedence lower than + (for example bitwise AND).


The derivation tree for an arithmetic expression generated using PLUS-MINUS will properly reflect operator precedence (see p 416) The parsing problem is how to determine whether a string x is in a language L. In this case whether a string is a valid arithmetic expression. Two approaches are:

(1) Top-down start with S and see if we can generate x (2) Bottom-up start with x and see if we can reduce it to S

(1) Top-down: On pages 416-420, Cohen gives an example of this approach showing

how a derivation tree is grown and pruned and how, in this case, a tree can be constructed with w as its leaves. Note that we dont need to grow the tree in full; we can explore a branch then backtrack to the parent and try another if it doesnt work out.

(2) Bottom-up: On pages 421-423. In this case the root of the tree is the string x and we try to construct a path to a leaf S.

We know from Data Structures classes that a postfix (Reverse Polish) arithmetic expression can be evaluated using a stack of operands. A PDA has a stack so it seems reasonable to devise a PDA that can read a postfix expression and output its value. We need to add ADD, MPY and PRINT operators to our existing set of nodes. This PDA is given on page 424. We also know from Data Structures that Dijkstras algorithm for converting infix to postfix also uses a stack. This time the stack contains operators and open parentheses. The PDA for this process is on Page 427. Input is an infix expression, output is the corresponding postfix.

Reading Assignment

Read Chapters 17 and 18


Homework #5 Here is Homework #5 due April 8, 2014. Each question is worth 20 points. Covers Chapters 16, 17 and 18. 1. Prove that the language { anbnanbnan for n = 1, 2, 3 } = ababa aabbaabbaa aaabbbaaabbbaaa is non-context-free. 2. Let VERYEQUAL be the language of all words over = { a b c} that have the

same number of as, bs and cs VERYEQUAL = { abc acb bac bca cab cba aabbcc aabc bc } Notice that the order of the letters does not matter. Prove that VERYEQUAL is non-context-free. 3. Language L1 is defined by the following CFG S aSa | aTa T b | bT

Language L2 is defined by the following CFG S XY

X aXb | ab Y a | aY

Is the intersection of these languages context free? Why or why not?


4. For each of the following grammars, determine whether it generates any words

using the algorithm of Theorem 42 (page 403) (i) S aSa | bSb (ii) S XY

X SY Y SX X a Y b

(iii) S AB

A BC C DA B CD D a A b

(iv) S XS Y YX Y YY Y XX X a

(v) S AB

A BSB B AAS A CC B CC C SS A a | b C b | bb

5. Using bottom-up parsing, find any derivation in the grammar PLUS-TIMES for

the following expressions: (a) i * (i) (b) i * ( i + i )

toc (2)

Documents