Context-Free Languages

Context-Free Languages

n n R
{a b : n  0} {ww }

Regular Languages
a *b * ( a  b) *
 Context-Free Languages

Context-Free Pushdown
Grammars Automata

stack

automaton
Context-Free Grammars
Context-Free Grammar: G  (V , T , S , P )

All productions in P are of the form

A s
Variable String of
variables and
terminals
Example of Context-Free Grammar
S  aSb | 
productions
P  {S  aSb, S  }

G  V ,T , S , P 

V  {S }
T  {a, b} start variable
variables
terminals
Example:

context-free grammar G : S  aSb | 

L(G )  {a b : n  0}
n n

Since, there is derivation


S a b n n
for any n 0
Context-Free Language:
A language L is context-free
if there is a context-free grammar G
with L  L (G )
Example:

L  {a b : n  0}
n n

is a context-free language
since context-free grammar G :
S  aSb | 

generates L(G )  L
 Another Example

Context-free grammar G :
S  aSa | bSb | 
Example derivations:
S  aSa  abSba  abba
S  aSa  abSba  abaSaba  abaaba

L(G )  {ww : w {a, b}*}

R

Palindromes of even length

 Another Example
Context-free grammar G :
S  aSb | SS | 
Example derivations:
S  SS  aSbS  abS  ab
S  SS  aSbS  abS  abaSb  abab

L(G )  {w : na (w)  nb (w)}

Describes
matched
parentheses: () ((( ))) (( )) a  (, b )
Derivation Order
and
Derivation Trees
 Derivation Order

Consider the following example grammar

with 5 productions:

1. S  AB 2. A  aaA 4. B  Bb
3. A   5. B  
1. S  AB 2. A  aaA 4. B  Bb
3. A   5. B  

Leftmost derivation order of string aab :

1 2 3 4 5
S  AB  aaAB  aaB  aaBb  aab

At each step, we substitute the

leftmost variable
1. S  AB 2. A  aaA 4. B  Bb
3. A   5. B  

Rightmost derivation order of string aab :

1 4 5 2 3
S  AB  ABb  Ab  aaAb  aab
At each step, we substitute the
rightmost variable
1. S  AB 2. A  aaA 4. B  Bb
3. A   5. B  

Leftmost derivation of aab :

1 2 3 4 5
S  AB  aaAB  aaB  aaBb  aab

Rightmost derivation of aab :

1 4 5 2 3
S  AB  ABb  Ab  aaAb  aab
 Derivation Trees
Consider the same example grammar:

S  AB A  aaA |  B  Bb | 

And a derivation of aab :

S  AB  aaAB  aaABb  aaBb  aab

S  AB A  aaA |  B  Bb | 

S  AB
S

A B

yield AB
S  AB A  aaA |  B  Bb | 

S  AB  aaAB
S

A B

yield aaAB
a a A
S  AB A  aaA |  B  Bb | 

S  AB  aaAB  aaABb
S

A B

a a A B b

yield aaABb
S  AB A  aaA |  B  Bb | 
S  AB  aaAB  aaABb  aaBb
S

A B

a a A B b

yield
 aa Bb  aaBb
 S  AB A  aaA |  B  Bb | 
S  AB  aaAB  aaABb  aaBb  aab
Derivation Tree S
(parse tree)
A B

a a A B b
yield
  aa  b  aab
Sometimes, derivation order doesn’t matter
Leftmost derivation:
S  AB  aaAB  aaB  aaBb  aab
Rightmost derivation:
S  AB  ABb  Ab  aaAb  aab
S

Give same
A B
derivation tree
a a A B b

 
Ambiguity
Grammar for mathematical expressions

E  E  E | E  E | (E) | a

Example strings:
(a  a )  a  (a  a  (a  a ))

Denotes any number

 E  E  E | E  E | (E) | a

E  E  E  a E  a EE
E
 a  a E  a  a*a
E  E
A leftmost derivation
for a  a  a
a E  E

a a
 E  E  E | E  E | (E) | a

E  EE  E  EE  a EE

E
 a  aE  a  aa
E  E
Another
leftmost derivation
for a  a  a E  E a

a a
 E  E  E | E  E | (E) | a

Two derivation trees

for a  a  a
E E

E  E E  E

a E  E E  E a

a a a a
 take a2

a  a a  2  22
E E

E  E E  E

2 E  E E  E 2

2 2 2 2
 Good Tree Bad Tree
2  22  6 2  22  8
6 Compute expression result 8
E using the tree E
2 4 4 2
E  E E  E
2 2 2 2
2 E  E E  E 2

2 2 2 2
Two different derivation trees
may cause problems in applications which
use the derivation trees:

• Evaluating expressions

• In general, in compilers
for programming languages
Another ambiguous grammar:

IF_STMT  if EXPR then STMT

| if EXPR then STMT else STMT

Variables Terminals

Very common piece of grammar

in programming languages
If expr1 then if expr2 then stmt1 else stmt2
IF_STMT

if expr1 then STMT

if expr2 then stmt1 else stmt2

Two derivation trees

IF_STMT

if expr1 then STMT else stmt2

if expr2 then stmt1

 In general, ambiguity is bad
and we want to remove it

Sometimes it is possible to find

a non-ambiguous grammar for a language

But, in general we cannot do so

A successful example:
Equivalent
Ambiguous
Non-Ambiguous
Grammar
Grammar
E E E
E  E T |T
E  E E
T T  F | F
E  (E )
E a F  (E ) | a
generates the same
language
E  E T T T  F T  a T  a T F
 a  F F  a  aF  a  aa
E
E  E T |T
E  T
T T F | F
F  (E) | a T T  F

Unique F F a
derivation tree
for a  a  a a a
An un-successful example:

L  {a b c }  {a b c }
n n m n m m

n, m  0

L is inherently ambiguous:

every grammar that generates this

language is ambiguous
 Example (ambiguous) grammar for L:

L  {a b c }  {a b c }
n n m n m m

S  S1 | S 2 S1  S1c | A S 2  aS 2 | B
A  aAb |  B  bBc | 
The string a n b nc n  L
has always two different derivation trees
(for any grammar)

For example
S S

S1 S2

S1 c a S2