1 Lecture 36 Attempt to prove that CFL’s are closed under intersection –Review previous constructions –Translate previous constructions to current setting.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Theory of Computation CS3102 – Spring 2014 A tale of computers, math, problem solving, life, love and tragic death Nathan Brunelle Department of Computer.

Advertisements

1 Pushdown Automata (PDA) Informally: –A PDA is an NFA-ε with a stack. –Transitions are modified to accommodate stack operations. Questions: –What is a.

1 Lecture 32 Closure Properties for CFL’s –Kleene Closure construction examples proof of correctness –Others covered less thoroughly in lecture union,

Closure Properties of CFL's

Nathan Brunelle Department of Computer Science University of Virginia Theory of Computation CS3102 – Spring 2014 A tale.

1 Module 20 NFA’s with -transitions –NFA- ’s Formal definition Simplifies construction –LNFA- –Showing LNFA  is a subset of LNFA (extra credit) and therefore.

Pushdown Automata (PDA)

Pushdown Automata Part II: PDAs and CFG Chapter 12.

1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture12: Decidable Languages Prof. Amos Israeli.

Introduction to Computability Theory

1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture7: PushDown Automata (Part 1) Prof. Amos Israeli.

1 Module 15 FSA’s –Defining FSA’s –Computing with FSA’s Defining L(M) –Defining language class LFSA –Comparing LFSA to set of solvable languages (REC)

Lecture 9 Recursive and r.e. language classes

1 Lecture 14 Language class LFSA –Study limits of what can be done with FSA’s –Closure Properties –Comparing to other language classes.

1 Module 19 LNFA subset of LFSA –Theorem 4.1 on page 131 of Martin textbook –Compare with set closure proofs Main idea –A state in FSA represents a set.

1 Module 9 Recursive and r.e. language classes –representing solvable and half-solvable problems Proofs of closure properties –for the set of recursive.

Lecture 8 Recursively enumerable (r.e.) languages

1 Lecture 21 Regular languages review –Several ways to define regular languages –Two main types of proofs/algorithms Relative power of two computational.

1 Module 33 Non-context free languages –Intuition and Examples CFL Pumping Lemma –Comparison to regular language pumping lemma –What it means –Proof overview.

1 Module 21 Closure Properties for LFSA using NFA’s –From now on, when I say NFA, I mean any NFA including an NFA- unless I add a specific restriction.

Why the algorithm works! Simulating 2 FSA’s with 1 FSA.

Conversion of CFG to PDA Conversion of PDA to CFG

1 Lecture 20 Regular languages are a subset of LFSA –algorithm for converting any regular expression into an equivalent NFA –Builds on existing algorithms.

1 Lecture 26 Decision problems about regular languages –Basic problems are solvable halting, accepting, and emptiness problems –Solvability of other problems.

1 Module 37 Showing CFL’s not closed under set intersection and set complement.

Why the algorithm works! Simulating 2 FSA’s with 1 FSA.

1 Lecture 16 FSA’s –Defining FSA’s –Computing with FSA’s Defining L(M) –Defining language class LFSA –Comparing LFSA to set of solvable languages (REC)

1 Module 18 NFA’s –nondeterministic transition functions computations are trees, not paths –L(M) and LNFA LFSA subset of LNFA –Comparing computational.

1 Module 34 CFG --> PDA construction –Shows that for any CFL L, there exists a PDA M such that L(M) = L –The reverse is true as well, but we do not prove.

Lecture 18 NFA’s with -transitions –NFA- ’s Formal definition Simplifies construction –LNFA- –Showing LNFA  is a subset of LNFA and therefore a subset.

1 Lecture 16 FSA’s –Defining FSA’s –Computing with FSA’s Defining L(M) –Defining language class LFSA –Comparing LFSA to set of solvable languages (REC)

1 Lecture 5 Topics –Closure Properties for REC Proofs –2 examples Applications.

1 Lecture 18 Closure Properties of Language class LFSA –Remember ideas used in solvable languages unit –Set complement –Set intersection, union, difference,

1 Lecture 32 CFG --> PDA construction –Shows that for any CFL L, there exists a PDA M such that L(M) = L –The reverse is true as well, but we do not prove.

1 Module 36 Non context-free languages –Examples and Intuition Pumping lemma for CFL’s –Pumping condition –No proof of pumping lemma –Applying pumping.

1 Module 31 Closure Properties for CFL’s –Kleene Closure construction examples proof of correctness –Others covered less thoroughly in lecture union, concatenation.

1 Lecture 16 NFA’s –nondeterministic transition functions computations are trees, not paths –L(M) and LNFA LFSA subset of LNFA –Comparing computational.

1 Lecture 23 Decision problems about regular languages –Programs can be inputs to other programs FSA’s, NFA’s, regular expressions –Basic problems are.

1 Module 25 Decision problems about regular languages –Basic problems are solvable halting, accepting, and emptiness problems –Solvability of other problems.

1 Lecture 19 Closure Properties for LFSA using NFA’s –union second proof –concatenation –Kleene closure.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.

1 Lecture 20 LNFA subset of LFSA –Theorem 4.1 on page 105 of Martin textbook –Compare with set closure proofs Main idea –A state in FSA represents a set.

Converting an NFA into an FSA Proving LNFA is a subset of LFSA.

January 15, 2014CS21 Lecture 61 CS21 Decidability and Tractability Lecture 6 January 16, 2015.

1 Module 10 Recursive and r.e. language classes –representing solvable and half-solvable problems Proofs of closure properties –for the set of recursive.

Finite State Machines Data Structures and Algorithms for Information Processing 1.

1 Lecture 11 Studying structure of REC –Complexity theory overview –Automata theory preview Motivating Problem –string searching.

1 Lecture 14 Studying the internal structure of REC, the set of solvable problems –Complexity theory overview –Automata theory preview Motivating Problem.

Nathan Brunelle Department of Computer Science University of Virginia Theory of Computation CS3102 – Spring 2014 A tale.

Final Exam Review Cummulative Chapters 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7.

1 Dr. torng CFG → PDA construction Shows that for any CFL L, there exists a PDA M such that L(M) = L The reverse is true, but we skip the proof Parsing.

Chapter 7 PDA and CFLs.

TM Design Universal TM MA/CSSE 474 Theory of Computation.

Definition Moves of the PDA Languages of the PDA Deterministic PDA’s Pushdown Automata 11.

Decidable Questions About Regular languages 1)Membership problem: “Given a specification of known type and a string w, is w in the language specified?”

1 Module 31 Closure Properties for CFL’s –Kleene Closure –Union –Concatenation CFL’s versus regular languages –regular languages subset of CFL.

Complexity and Computability Theory I Lecture #11 Instructor: Rina Zviel-Girshin Lea Epstein.

Pushdown Accepters & Context-Free Grammars Sipser, Theorem 2.12 Denning, Chapter 8.

Foundations of (Theoretical) Computer Science Chapter 2 Lecture Notes (Section 2.2: Pushdown Automata) Prof. Karen Daniels, Fall 2010 with acknowledgement.

CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing October 13, 2005.

1 Module 17 Closure Properties of Language class LFSA –Remember ideas used in solvable languages unit –Set complement –Set intersection, union, difference,

1 Turing Machines - Chap 8 Turing Machines Recursive and Recursively Enumerable Languages.

Lecture 16b Turing Machines Topics: Closure Properties of Context Free Languages Cocke-Younger-Kasimi Parsing Algorithm June 23, 2015 CSCE 355 Foundations.

CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.

CSC 3130: Automata theory and formal languages Andrej Bogdanov The Chinese University of Hong Kong Undecidable.

Turing Machines.

CS21 Decidability and Tractability

Decidability and Tractability

Conversion of CFG to PDA Conversion of PDA to CFG

More Undecidable Problems

Presentation transcript:

1 Lecture 36 Attempt to prove that CFL’s are closed under intersection –Review previous constructions –Translate previous constructions to current setting –Prove modified result

2 High Level Overview

3 CFL closed under set intersection Let L 1 and L 2 be arbitrary CFL’s Let M 1 and M 2 be PDA’s s.t. L(M 1 ) = L 1, L(M 2 ) = L 2 –M 1 and M 2 exist by definition of L 1 and L 2 are CFL’s and the fact that for every CFG, there is an equivalent PDA Construct PDA M 3 from PDA’s M 1 and M 2 Argue L(M 3 ) = L 1 intersect L 2 There exists a PDA M 3 s.t. L(M 3 ) = L 1 intersect L 2 L 1 intersect L 2 is a CFL

4 Visualization Let L 1 and L 2 be arbitrary CFL’s Let M 1 and M 2 be PDA’s s.t. L(M 1 ) = L 1, L(M 2 ) = L 2 M 1 and M 2 exist by definition of L 1 and L 2 are CFL’s and the fact that for every CFG, there is an equivalent PDA Construct PDA M 3 from PDA’s M 1 and M 2 Argue L(M 3 ) = L 1 intersect L 2 There exists a PDA M 3 s.t. L(M 3 ) = L 1 intersect L 2 L 1 intersect L 2 is a CFL L 1 intersect L 2 L1L1 L2L2 CFL M3M3 M1M1 M2M2 PDA’s

5 Algorithm Specification Input –Two PDA’s M 1 and M 2 Output –PDA M 3 such that L(M 3 ) = L(M 1 ) intersection L(M 2 ) PDA M 1 PDA M 2 PDA M 3 A

6 Review Previous Results

7 Underlying Idea Previous Results –recursive languages are closed under set intersection –r.e. languages are closed under set intersection –regular languages are closed under set intersection What is the idea underlying the constructions used to prove these previous results?

8 Implementation with FSA’s Given the basic idea underlying these constructions, how was this idea implemented in when dealing with FSA’s? That is, restate the construction used to prove that the regular languages are closed under set intersection. –Specify the output FSA in terms of the input FSA’s

9 Applying previous approach to PDA’s

10 Applying approach to PDA’s Given the basic idea underlying these constructions, try and implement this idea in a construction working with PDA’s rather than FSA’s. That is, give a construction specifying how the output PDA is built out of the input PDA’s

11 Problem Describe what goes wrong when applying this idea to PDA’s instead of FSA’s. Does this prove that CFL’s are NOT closed under set intersection?

12 Modified Result What happens if the inputs are –1 PDA –1 FSA Is the problem still a problem? If not, what modified result does the resulting construction prove?