Kleene Closure in Chomsky Normal Form - grammar

Let n be any terminal.
Consider the following, presumably correct, representation of the kleene star over n:
N → n N | ε
(where ε is the empty terminal.)
Wikipedia says:
Every grammar in Chomsky normal form is context-free, and conversely, every context-free grammar can be transformed into an equivalent one which is in Chomsky normal form.
I cannot see how the above grammar could be transformed to CNF.
Is the grammar not context-free?
Is there in fact a way to represent it in CNF?

Fortunately, this can be written in CNF. Here is one such grammar:
S → ε | n | NA
N → n
A → n | NA
Therefore, the language is context-free.
Hope this helps!

Related

How can I derivate these Grammar

G = (V={S,X,Y}, T={0,1,2},P,S)
S -> 0X1
X ->S | 00S2 | Y | ε
Y ->X | 1
The Problem is I don´t know how to derivate numbers..
How can I derivate this here:
00111 ∈ L(G)
And here I have to give a derivation three:
0000121 ∈ L(G)
To do a derivation you start with the start symbol (in this case S) which is the fourth item in the grammar tuple). You then apply the production rules (P) in whatever order seems appropriate to you.
A production like:
X → S | 00S2 | Y | ε
means that you can replace an X with
S, or
00S2, or
Y, or
nothing.
In other words, you read production rules as follows:
→ means "can be replaced with".
| means "or"
ε means "nothing" (Replacing a symbol with nothing means deleting it from the current string.)
Everything else is just a possible symbol in the string. You keep doing replacements, one at a time, until you reach the string you are trying to derive.
Here's a quick example:
S
→ 0X1 (using S → 0X1)
→ 000S21 (using X → 00S2)
→ 0000X121 (using S → 0X1)
→ 0000121 (using X → ε)
That's it. Nothing complicated at all. Just a bunch of search and replace operations. (You don't need to replace the first occurrence, if there is more than one possibility. You can do the replacements in any order you like. But it's convenient to be systematic.)

Expressing the language of a grammar

How do I express the language accepted by a grammar into a set notation, i.e. the following grammar?
S → aSa|A
A → bAb|B
B → ccB|λ
Thanks.

Formal grammar and arity

I have the following grammar:
S --> LR .
L --> aL .
R --> bR .
This grammar generates the language a^n b^k, where n,k > 0.
I want a grammar that generates the language a^n b^n where n>0, so
my goal is to obtain a grammar in order to ensure that the number of a is always equal of b, but still keeping the non-terminals L and R.
Is there a way to do this?
In a.context free grammar, the derivations of L and R in S → L R are independent of each other. That is what "context free" means: the derivation of a non-terminal is not affected by the context in which the non-terminal occurs.
So if you want a grammar in which L and R must derive strings of equal length, it will have to be a context-sensitive grammar. No context-free grammar can do that.
Of course, there is a simple CFG for the language:
S →
S → a S b

Computation of follow set

To compute FOLLOW(A) for all non-terminals A, apply the following rules
until nothing can be added to any FOLLOW set.
Place $ in FOLLOW(S) , where S is the start symbol, and $ is the input
right endmarker .
If there is a production A -> B, then everything in FIRST(b) except epsilon
is in FOLLOW(B) .
If there is a production A -> aBb, or a production A -> aBb, where
FIRST(b) contains t, then everything in FOLLOW(A) is in FOLLOW(B).
a,b is actually alpha and beta(sentential form). This is from dragon book.
Now my question is in this case can we take a=epsilon ?
and can b(beta) be 2 non-terminals like XY? (if senetntial then it solud be..)
Here's what the Dragon book actually says: [See note 1]
Place $ in FOLLOW(S).
For every production A→αBβ, place everything
in FIRST(β) except ε into
FOLLOW(B)
For every production A→αB or
A→αBβ where FIRST(β) contains
ε, place FOLLOW(A) into
FOLLOW(B).
There is a section earlier in the book on "notational conventions" in which it is made clear that a lower-case greek letter like α or β represents a possibly empty string of grammar symbols. So, yes, α could be empty and β could be two nonterminals (or any other string of grammar symbols).
Note:
Here I'm using a variant on the formatting suggesting made by #leftroundabout in this meta post. (The only difference is that I put the formulae in bold.) It's easy to type Greek letters as entities if you don't have a Greek keyboard handy; just use, for example, α (α) or β (β). For upper-case Greek letters, write the name with an upper-case letter: Σ (Σ). Other useful symbols are arrows: → (→) and ⇒ (⇒).

Specifying language for a given grammar

DFA problem : Write a complete grammar for L, including the quadruple and the production rules
L ={x: ∃y ∈ {a, b}* : x = ay}
Answer:
G={{S, A}, {a, b}, S, P}
P: S => aA
A => aA | bA | λ
My question is :
Why there is λ for A, but there is no λ for S?
From the language definition, it is any string that begins with an a and contains only a's and b's , but why in the answer A => bA. Does not it mean that the string starts with b if it is A => bA?
Thank you so much
1. Why there is λ for A, but there is no λ for S?
λ nul can be derived from A to convert a sentimental from into sentence. Additionally according to language statement prefix sub-string y ∈ {a, b}* can be nul (a empty string) e.g. "a" is a string belongs to the language. If y contain any symbol then length of language will be more than one.
S doesn't derive λ nul because empty (or say nul string) is not in language. The smallest string in language is single "a".
2. From the language definition, it is any string that begins with an a and contains only a's and b's , but why in the answer A => bA. Does not it mean that the string starts with b if it is A => bA?
Note only strings those can derived from start variable S are included in language of grammar. You can't start derivation from A (that is not start variable). And if you start a derivation from S your string will always start with a symbol.
I suggest you to read: "Why the need for terminals? Is my solution sufficient enough?" Where I written about basic definition of formal grammar.