I have a language L, which is defined as: L = { b^n c^n a^n , n>=1}
The corresponding grammar would be able to create words such as:
bca
bbccaa
bbbcccaaa
...
How would such a grammar look like? Making two variables dependent of each other is relatively simple, but I have trouble with doing it for three.
Thanks in advance!
L = { b^n c^n a^n , n>=1}
As pointed out in the comments, this is a canonical example of a language which is not context free. It can be shown using the pumping lemma for context-free languages. Basically, consider a string like b^p c^p a^p where p is the pumping length and then show no matter what part you pump, you will throw off the balance (basically, the size of the part that's pumped is less than p, so it cannot "span" all three symbols to keep them in sync).
L = {a^m b^n c^n a^(m+n) |m ≥ 0,n ≥ 1}
As suggested in the comments, this is not context free either. It can be shown using the pumping lemma for context-free languages as well. However, given a proof (or acceptance) of the above, there is an easier way. Recall that the intersection of a regular language and a context-free language must be context free. Assume L is context-free. Then so must be its intersection with the regular language (b+c)(b+c)* a*. However, that intersection can be expressed as b^n c^n a^n (since m is forced to be zero), which we know is not context-free, a contradiction. Therefore, our assumption was wrong and L is not context free either.
Related
How can you prove the language L given below is not context-free, I would like to know does my proof given below makes any sense, if not, what would be the correct method to prove?
L = {a^n b^n c^i|n ≤ i ≤ 2n}
I am trying to solve this language by contradiction. Suppose L is regular and with pumping length p such that S = a^p b^p c^p. Observe that S ∉ L. Since there must be a pumping cycle xy with length less than p, this can duplicate y which consists of some number of b to cause x(y^2)z to enter the language because the number of b exceeds the number of c by no longer bound by the given condition of i which is n ≤ i ≥ 2n, therefore, we have contradiction and hence language L is not context-free.
The proof is by contradiction. Assume the language is context-free. Then, by the pumping lemma for context-free languages, any string in L can be written as uvxyz where |vxy| < p, |vy| > 0 and for all natural numbers k, u(v^k)x(y^k)z is in the language as well. Choose a^p b^p c^(p+1). Then we must be able to write this string as uvxyz so that |vy| > 0. There are several possibilities to consider:
v and y consist only of a's. In this case, pumping in either direction causes the numbers of a's and b's to differ, producing a string not in the language; so this cannot be the case.
v and y consist only of a's and b's. In this case, pumping might keep the numbers of a's and b's the same, but pumping up will eventually cause the number of c's to be less than the number of a's and b's; so this cannot be the case.
v and y consist only of b's. This case is similar to (1) above and so cannot be a valid choice.
v and y consist only of b's and c's. Also similar to (1) and (3) in that pumping will cause the numbers of a's and b's to differ.
v and y consist only of c's. Pumping up will eventually cause there to be more c's than twice the number of a's; so this cannot be the case either.
No matter how we choose v and y, pumping will produce strings not in the language. This is a contradiction; this means our assumption that the language is context-free must have been incorrect.
I have a problem with the recognition of languages. Given a certain language, for example ancb2n, n > 0, how do I determine quickly what type belongs according Chomsky?
My idea was to determine the grammar that generates it and then up to the language but it is a long process. I think there's another way to recognize it by eye,
without writing grammars or automata.
can someone help me?
Unfortunately, associating an arbitrary language with a level of the Chomsky hierarchy is, in the general case, undecidable. (See Rice's Theorem.)
Of course, it is easy to categorize a given grammar, since the Chomsky hierarchy is defined by a simple syntactic analysis of the grammar itself. However, languages do not have unique grammars; the existence of (for example) a Type 2 (context-free) grammar for a language does not mean that there is not a Type 3 (regular) grammar for the same language.
So there are no shortcuts.
However, there is a lot to be said for experience. The language { ancb2n | n > 0 } is context-free (and not regular), as are all languages of similar forms. That it is context free is demonstrated by the grammar
L → c
L → a L b b
and the fact that it is not regular can be proven using the pumping lemma for regular languages. (The linked Wikipedia article contains, as an example of the use of the lemma, a proof for a similar language which should be easy to adapt.)
On the other hand, a language which requires three equal counts ({ ancnbn | n > 0 }) is not context-free (but is context-sensitive). (That's not the same as { ancn+mbm | n > 0 }, which is context-free.)
I'm kind a stuck with automaton and grammars problem. I've searched a lot but without any success.
Is it even possible to construct a grammar generating this language L?
L = { a(2i) | i >= 0}
Can anyone provide me with simple solution?
It's certainly possible to write a grammar for this language, but it won't be a context-free grammar. That's easy to demonstrate using the pumping lemma.
The pumping lemma states that for any CFL, there is some integer p such that any string s in the language whose length is at least p can be written as uvxyz, where u, v, x, y and z are strings and vy is not empty, and for all integers n, the string uvnxynz is also in the language.
That is, for any string in the language (whose length l is greater than p), there is there some k such that there are strings in the language whose lengths are l + nk for any integer n. That is not the case for the language a2i, since those strings have exponential lengths, so the language cannot be context-free.
Constructing a non-context-free grammar for the language is not that difficult, but I don't know how useful it is.
The following is a Type 0 grammar (i.e. it's not context-sensitive either), but only because of the productions used to get rid of the metacharacters. The basic idea here is that there we put start and end markers around the string ([ and ]) and we have a "duplicator" (↣) which moves from left to right doubling the a's; when it hits the end marker, it either turns into a back-shuttle (↢) or it eats the end-marker and turns into a start-marker-destroyer (↞)
Start: [↣a]
↣a: aa↣
↣]: ↢]
↣]: ↞
a↢: ↢a
a↞: ↞a
[↢: [↣
[↞:
how can i show a language is context sensitive with a non deterministic turing machine?
i know that a language that is accepted by a Linear bound automaton (LBA ) is a context -sensitive language. And a LBA is a non-deterministic turing machine.
Any idea how can i relate all these and show that a language is context sensitive?
As templatetypedef's answer has some flaws (which I will point out in a second in a comment), I give a quick answer to your question:
The language is context sensitive if (and only if) you can give a nondeterministic turing machine using linear space that defines L.
Let L = { a^n b^n a^n } for an arbitrary integer n; a^n here means n concatenations of the symbol a. This is a typical context sensitive language. Instead of giving a CSG, you can give a LBA to show that L is context sensitive:
The turing machine M 'guesses' (thanks to nondeterminism) n [in other words you may say 'every branch of the nondeterministic search tree tries out another n], and then checks whether the input matches a^n b^n a^n. You need log n cells to store n, the matching might need (if implemented trivially) another log n cells. As n + 2log n < 2n, this machine needs only linear space, and is therefore an LBA, hence L is context sensitive.
This is not an exact answer, but since the context-sensitive languages are precisely those accepted by a linear-bounded automaton (a TM with O(n) space on its tape), the context-sensitive languages are precisely those in DSPACE(n). Moreover, we know that NTIME(n) = DSPACE(n). This means that if you can find a linear-time NTM that decides membership in some language L, that language must be context-sensitive. However, there still might be a context-sensitive language that does not have a linear-time NTM (I don't know whether there is a definitive answer to this or whether this is an open problem), so this is not an exact characterization.
Hope this helps!
Is the language of all strings over the alphabet "a,b,c" with the same number of substrings "ab" & "ba" regular?
I believe the answer is NO, but it is hard to make a formal demonstration of it, even a NON formal demonstration.
Any ideas on how to approach this?
It's clearly not regular. How is an FA going to recognize (abc)^n c (cba)^n. Strings like this are in your language, right? The argument is a simple one based on the fact that there are infinitely many equivalence classes under the indistinguishability relation I_l.
The most common way to prove a language is NOT regular is using on of the Pumping Lemmas.
Using the lemma is a little tricky, since it has all those "exists" and so on. To prove a language L is not regular using the pumping lemma you have to prove that
for any integer p,
there is a word w in L of length n, with n>=p, such that
for all possible ways to decompose w as xyz, with len(xy) <= p and y non empty
there exists an i such that x(y^i)z (repeating the y bit i times) is NOT in L
whooo!
I'l l show how the proof looks for the "same number of as and bs" language. It should be straighfoward to convert to your case:
for any given p, we can make a word of length n = 2*p
a^p b^p (p a's followed by p b's)
any way you decompose this into xyz w/ |xy| <=p, y will only contain a's.
Thus, pumping the the y part will make the word have more as than bs,
thus NOT belonging to L.
If you need intuition on why this works, it follows from how you need to be able to count to arbritrarily large numbers to verify if a word belongs to one of these languages. However, Regular Languages are described by finite automata and no finite automata can represent the infinite ammount of states required to represent all the numbers. (The Wikipedia article should have a formal proof).
EDIT: It looks like you can't straight up use the pumping lemma in this particular case directly: if you always make y be one character long you can never make a word stop being accepted (aba becoming abbbba makes no difference and so on).
Just do the equivalence class approach suggested by Patrick87 - it will probably turn out to be cleaner than any of the dirty hacks you would need to do to make the pumping lemma applicable here.