Scribd
Upload
65 views

Theory of Computation

The document discusses recursive definitions of formal languages. It explains that a recursive definition uses three steps: 1) specifying basic words in the language, 2) defining rules to construct more words, and 3) restricting the language to only words constructed by the rules. Several example languages are defined recursively, including EVEN, factorial, anbn, strings ending in a, and strings beginning/ending with the same letter. The document also recursively defines the language of valid arithmetic expressions and propositional calculus expressions. It proves some theorems about what cannot be contained in the languages.

Uploaded by

FawadAli
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
65 views

Theory of Computation

The document discusses recursive definitions of formal languages. It explains that a recursive definition uses three steps: 1) specifying basic words in the language, 2) defining rules to construct more words, and 3) restricting the language to only words constructed by the rules. Several example languages are defined recursively, including EVEN, factorial, anbn, strings ending in a, and strings beginning/ending with the same letter. The document also recursively defines the language of valid arithmetic expressions and propositional calculus expressions. It proves some theorems about what cannot be contained in the languages.

Uploaded by

FawadAli
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 18

Theory of Computation

Defining Languages Continued

Recursive definition of languages


The following three steps are used in recursive
definition
1. Some basic words are specified in the
language.
2. Rules for constructing more words are defined
in the language.
3. No strings except those constructed in above,
are allowed to be in the language.

Example
Defining language of EVEN
Step 1:
2 is in EVEN.
Step 2:
If x is in EVEN then x+2 and x-2 are also in
EVEN.
Step 3:
No strings except those constructed in above,
are allowed to be in EVEN.

Example
Defining the language factorial
Step 1:
As 0!=1, so 1 is in factorial.
Step 2:
n!=n*(n-1)! is in factorial.
Step 3:
No strings except those constructed in above,
are allowed to be in factorial.

Defining the language {anbn }, n=1,2,3, , of


strings defined over ={a,b}
Step 1:
ab is in {anbn}
Step 2:
if x is in {anbn}, then axb is in {anbn}
Step 3:
No strings except those constructed in
above, are allowed to be in {anbn}

Defining the language L, of strings ending in


a , defined over ={a,b}
Step 1:
a is in L
Step 2:
if x is in L then s(x) is also in L, where s belongs
to *
Step 3:
No strings except those constructed in
above, are allowed to be in L
6

Defining the language L, of strings beginning


and ending in same letters , defined over
={a, b}
Step 1:
a and b are in L
Step 2:
(a)s(a) and (b)s(b) are also in L, where s
belongs to *
Step 3:
No strings except those constructed in
above, are allowed to be in L
7

Defining the language L, of strings


containing exactly aa, defined over ={a, b}
Step 1:
aa is in L
Step 2:
s(aa)s is also in L, where s belongs to b*
Step 3:
No strings except those constructed in
above, are allowed to be in L

Arithmetic Expressions
Suppose we ask ourselves what constitutes a
valid arithmetic expression, or AE for short.
The alphabet for this language is
= {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, +, -, *, /, (, )}

Theory Of Automata
9

Arithmetic Expression AE
Obviously, the following expressions are not valid:
(3 + 5) + 6)
2(/8 + 9)
(3 + (4-)8)
The first contains unbalanced parentheses; the second
contains the forbidden substring /; the third contains the
forbidden substring -).
Are there more rules? The subsequences // and */ are
also forbidden.
Are there still more?
The most suitable way of defining a valid AE is by using
a recursive definition, rather than a long list of
forbidden substrings.

Theory Of Automata
10

Recursive Definition of AE
Rule 1: Any number (positive, negative, or zero) is in
AE.

Rule 2: If x is in AE, then so are


(i) (x)
(ii) -x (provided that x does not already start with a minus sign)

Rule 3: If x and y are in AE, then so are


(i) x + y (if the first symbol in y is not + or -)
(ii) x - y (if the first symbol in y is not + or -)
(iii) x * y
(iv) x / y
(v) x ** y (our notation for exponentiation)
Theory Of Automata
11

The above definition is the most natural, because it is the method


we use to recognize valid arithmetic expressions in real life.
For instance, we wish to determine if the following expression is
valid:
(2 + 4) * (7 * (9 - 3)/4)/4 * (2 + 8) 1
We do not really scan over the string, looking for forbidden
substrings or count the parentheses.
We actually imagine the expression in our mind broken down into
components:
Is (2 + 4) OK? Yes
Is (9 - 3) OK? Yes
Is 7 * (9 - 3)/4 OK? Yes, and so on.

Theory Of Automata
12

Note that the recursive definition of the set AE gives us


the possibility of writing 8/4/2, which is ambiguous,
because it could mean 8/(4/2) = 4 or (8/4)/2 = 1.
However, the ambiguity of 8/4/2 is a problem of
meaning. There is no doubt that this string is a word in
AE, only doubt about what it means.
By applying Rule 2, we could always put enough
parentheses to avoid such a confusion.
The recursive definition of the set AE is useful for
proving many theorems about arithmetic expressions, as
we shall see in the next few slides.
Theory Of Automata
13

Theorem
An arithmetic expression cannot contain the
character $.
Proof
This character is not part of any number, so it cannot be
introduced into an AE by Rule 1.
If the character string x does not contain the character $,
then neither do the string (x) and -x. So, the character $
cannot be introduced into an AE by Rule 2.
If neither x nor y contains the character $, then neither
do any of the expressions defined in Rule 3.
Therefore, the character $ can never get into an AE.

Theorem 3 & 4
No arithmetic expression can begin or end
with the symbol /.
Proof?
No arithmetic expression can contain the
substring //.
Proof?

Propositional Calculus
Propositional calculus (or sentential calculus) is
a branch of symbolic logic that we shall be
interested in.
The version we define here uses only negation
() and implication (), together with the phrase
variables.
The alphabet for this language is
= {, , (, ), a, b, c, d, }
A valid expression in this language is called
WFF (well-form formula).

Propositional Calculus
The rules for forming WFFs are:
Rule 1: Any single Latin letter is a WFF, for instance a,
b, c, ...
Rule 2: If p is a WFF, then so are (p) and p.
Rule 3: If p and q are WFFs, then so is p q.
Can you show that p ((p p) q) is a WFF?
Can you show that the following are NOT WFFs?
p
p
p) p(

Useful Reading
Third chapter of Daniel I. Cohen book.

18

You might also like