Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
lfa:2022:lab10-cfl_2 [2022/12/10 13:28]
alexandra.udrescu01
lfa:2022:lab10-cfl_2 [2022/12/29 00:59] (current)
alexandra.udrescu01
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== 10. Context-Free Languages ​Part. 2 ======+====== 10. Context-Free Languages ​& Lexers ​======
  
 ===== 10.1. Context-Free Grammar to PDA conversion ===== ===== 10.1. Context-Free Grammar to PDA conversion =====
Line 6: Line 6:
   - describe L(G) \\   - describe L(G) \\
   - algoritmically construct a PDA that accepts the same language \\   - algoritmically construct a PDA that accepts the same language \\
 +  - run the PDA on the given inputs \\
   - is the grammar ambiguous? If yes, write a non ambiguous grammar that generates the same language \\   - is the grammar ambiguous? If yes, write a non ambiguous grammar that generates the same language \\
-    - $ S \leftarrow aS | aSb | \epsilon $ \\ \\ + 
-    - $ S \leftarrow aAA  ​\\ ​A → aS | bS | a $ \\ +**10.1.1** input: aaaabb \\ 
-    - $ S \leftarrow ABC \\ A \leftarrow aA | \epsilon \\ B \leftarrow bbB | b \\ C \leftarrow cC | c$  ​+$ S \leftarrow aS | aSb | \epsilon $ \\ 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 +<hidden Solution>​ 
 +The start symbol of the PDA is S. \\ The PDA will only have one state q and it will accept via empty stack. ​\\ 
 +For each nonterminal/​rule $ A \leftarrow \gamma $ add a transition **q ---$(\epsilon, A/ \gamma)$--➤ q** and for each terminal c add  **q ---$(c, c/ \epsilon)$--➤ q** 
 + 
 +Thus, our PDA has the following transitions looping on state q: 
 +  * $ \epsilon, ​S/aS $ 
 +  * $ \epsilon, S/aSb $ 
 +  * $ \epsilon, S/\epsilon $  
 +  * $ a, a/\epsilon $  
 +  * $ b, b/\epsilon $  
 + 
 +Input: aaabb \\ (aaabb, q, S) => (**a**aabb, q, **a**Sb) => (aabb, q, Sb) => (**a**abb, q, **a**Sbb) => (abb, q, Sbb) => (**a**bb, q, **a**Sbb) => (bb, q, Sbb) => (bb, q, bb) => (b, q, b) => ($\epsilon$,​ q, $\epsilon$) \\ 
 +\\ 
 +Is the grammar ambiguuous? yes, because there exist 2 different left-derivations for word aaabb \\ S => aSb => aaSbb => aaaSbb => aaabb \\ S => aS => aaSb => aaaSbb => aaabb \\ 
 +\\ 
 +The accepted language is $ L(G) = \{a^{m}b^{n} ​m \ge n \ge 0\} $ \\ 
 +\\ 
 +Repaired grammar: \\ $ S \leftarrow aS A \\ A \leftarrow aAb | \epsilon $ 
 +</​hidden>​ 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 +**10.1.2** input: xayxcayatabcazz \\ 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 +$ S \leftarrow ​| xAz | SbS | cS  \\ A \leftarrow SyS | SyStS $ 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 +<hidden Solution>​ 
 +The  PDA has the following transitions looping on state q: 
 +  * $ \epsilon, S/a $ 
 +  * $ \epsilon, S/xAz $ 
 +  * $ \epsilon, S/SbS $  
 +  * $ \epsilon, S/cS $   
 +  * $ \epsilon, A/SyS $   
 +  * $ \epsilon, A/SyStS $   
 +  * $ a, a/\epsilon $  
 +  * $ b, b/\epsilon $ 
 +  * $ c, c/\epsilon $ 
 +  * $ x, x/\epsilon $ 
 +  * $ y, y/\epsilon $ 
 +  * $ z, z/\epsilon $ 
 +  * $ t, t/\epsilon $ 
 +Input: xayxcayatabcazz \\ (xayxcayatabcazz,​ q, S) => (xayxcayatabcazz,​ q, xAz) => (ayxcayatabcazz,​ q, Az) => (ayxcayatabcazz,​ q, SySz) => (ayxcayatabcazz,​ q, aySz) => (yxcayatabcazz,​ q, ySz) => (xcayatabcazz,​ q, Sz) => (xcayatabcazz,​ q, xAzz) => (cayatabcazz,​ q, Azz) => (cayatabcazz,​ q, SyStSzz) => (cayatabcazz,​ q, cSyStSzz) => (ayatabcazz,​ q, SyStSzz) => (ayatabcazz,​ q, ayStSzz) => (yatabcazz, q, yStSzz) => (atabcazz, q, StSzz) => (atabcazz, q, StSzz) => (atabcazz, q, atSzz) => (tabcazz, q, tSzz) => (abcazz, q, Szz) => (abcazz, q, SbSzz) => (abcazz, q, abSzz) => (bcazz, q, bSzz) => (cazz, q, Szz) => (cazz, q, cSzz) => (azz, q, Szz) => (azz, q, azz) => (zz, q, zz)  => (z, q, z) => ($\epsilon$,​ q, $\epsilon$)\\ 
 +\\ 
 +Is the grammar ambiguuous? yes because of word ababa that has 2 different left-derivations \\ S => SbS => abS => abSbS => ababS => ababa \\ S => SbS => SbSbS => abSbS => ababS => ababa \\ 
 +\\ 
 +It is hard to directly explain the language in this form. Another form may be easier. Let's relabel the terminals: a => bool; b => and; c => not; x => if; y => then; z => fi; t => else.\\ 
 +The grammar becomes: $ S \leftarrow bool | if  A  fi | S  and  S | not  S  \\ A \leftarrow S  then  S | S  then  S  else  S $\\ 
 +The language generated can be described as the language of boolean expressions (considering '​bool'​ is either a variable or a literal) with the operations '​and',​ '​not',​ '​if-then'​ and '​if-then-else'​. 
 +\\ 
 +Why is it ambigous? The '​and'/​b operator does not define its associativity,​ and the operators '​and'/​b and '​not'/​c do not have a clear precedence rule.\\ 
 +To fix this grammar we will use the following conventions:​ ababa == (aba)ba and caba == (ca)ba \\ 
 +Repaired grammar: \\ 
 +$ S \leftarrow TbS | T  \\ T \leftarrow cT | xAz | a \\ A \leftarrow SyS | SyStS $ \\ 
 +</​hidden>​ 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 +**10.1.3** input: aaabbbbbccc \\ 
 + 
 +$ S \leftarrow ABC \\ A \leftarrow aA | \epsilon \\ B \leftarrow bbB | b \\ C \leftarrow cC | c $  
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 +<hidden Solution>​ 
 +The  PDA has the following transitions looping on state q: 
 +  * $ \epsilon, S/ABC $ 
 +  * $ \epsilon, A/aA $ 
 +  * $ \epsilon, A/\epsilon $  
 +  * $ \epsilon, B/bbB $ 
 +  * $ \epsilon, B/b $ 
 +  * $ \epsilon, C/cC $  
 +  * $ \epsilon, C/c $    
 +  * $ a, a/\epsilon $  
 +  * $ b, b/\epsilon $ 
 +  * $ c, c/\epsilon $  
 + 
 +Input: aaabbbbbccc \\ (aaabbbbbccc,​ q, S) => (aaabbbbbccc,​ q, ABC) => (aaabbbbbccc,​ q, aABC) => (aabbbbbccc,​ q, ABC) =>  
 +=> (aabbbbbccc,​ q, aABC) => (abbbbbccc, q, ABC) => (aabbbbbccc,​ q, ABC) => (aabbbbbccc,​ q, aABC) => => (abbbbbccc, q, ABC) => => (abbbbbccc, q, aABC) => (bbbbbccc, q, ABC) 
 +=> (bbbbbccc, q, BC) => (bbbbbccc, q, bbBC) => (bbbbccc, q, bBC) => (bbbccc, q, BC) => (bbbccc, q, bbBC) => (bbccc, q, bBC) => (bccc, q, BC) => (bccc, q, bC)  
 +=> (ccc, q, C) => (ccc, q, cC) => (cc, q, C) => (cc, q, cC) => (c, q, C) => (c, q, c) => ($\epsilon$,​ q, $\epsilon$) \\ 
 +\\ 
 +Is the grammar ambiguuous? no \\ 
 +\\ 
 +The accepted language is $ L(G) = \{a^{m}b^{2n + 1}c^{p+1} | m,n,p \ge 0\} $ \\ 
 +</​hidden>​ 
 + 
  
 ===== 10.2. Lexer Spec ===== ===== 10.2. Lexer Spec =====
 +Given the following specs, construct the lexer DFA as presented in Lecture 14:
 +  * PAIRS: $ (10 | 01)* $
 +  * ONES: $ 1+ $
 +  * NO_CONSEC_ONE:​ $ (1 | \epsilon)(01 | 0)* $
 +Separate the following input strings into lexemes:
 +  * 010101
 +
 +
 +
 +<​hidden> ​
 +Although the entire string is matched by PAIRS and NO_CONSEC_ONE,​ PAIRS is defined first, thus it will be the first picked. \\
 +PAIRS "​010101"​
 +
 +
 +</​hidden>​
 +
 +
 +  * 1010101011
 +
 +
 +<​hidden> ​
 +First we have a maximal match on "​101010101"​ for regex NO_CONSEC_ONE. The remaining string, "​1",​ is matched by both ONES and NO_CONSEC_ONE,​ but ONES  is defined first. \\
 +NO_CONSEC_ONE "​101010101"​ \\ ONES "​1"​
 +</​hidden>​
 +
 +
 +  * 01110101001
 +
 +
 +<​hidden>​
 +PAIRS "​01"​ \\
 +ONES "​11"​ \\
 +NO_CONSEC_ONES "​0101001"​
 +</​hidden>​
 +
 +
 +  * 01010111111001010
 +
 +
 +<​hidden>​
 +PAIRS "​010101"​ \\
 +ONES "​11111"​ \\
 +NO_CONSEC_ONES "​001010"​
 +</​hidden> ​
 +
 +
 +  * 1101101001111100001010011001
 +
 +
 +<​hidden>​
 +ONES "​11"​
 +PAIRS "​01101001"​ \\
 +ONES "​1111"​ \\
 +NO_CONSEC_ONES "​0000101001"​ \\
 +PAIRS "​1001"​
 +</​hidden>​