Context-free language: Difference between revisions

In

A model context-free language is ${\displaystyle L=\{a^{n}b^{n}:n\geq 1\}}$, the language of all non-empty even-length strings, the entire first halves of which are a's, and the entire second halves of which are b's. L is generated by the grammar ${\displaystyle S\to aSb~|~ab}$. This language is not regular. It is accepted by the pushdown automaton ${\displaystyle M=(\{q_{0},q_{1},q_{f}\},\{a,b\},\{a,z\},\delta ,q_{0},z,\{q_{f}\})}$ where ${\displaystyle \delta }$ is defined as follows:^{[note 1]}

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\delta (q_{0},a,z)&=(q_{0},az)\\\delta (q_{0},a,a)&=(q_{0},aa)\\\delta (q_{0},b,a)&=(q_{1},\varepsilon )\\\delta (q_{1},b,a)&=(q_{1},\varepsilon )\\\delta (q_{1},\varepsilon ,z)&=(q_{f},\varepsilon )\end{aligned}}}$

Unambiguous CFLs are a proper subset of all CFLs: there are

${\displaystyle \{a^{n}b^{m}c^{m}d^{n}|n,m>0\}}$

${\displaystyle \{a^{n}b^{n}c^{m}d^{m}|n,m>0\}}$

${\displaystyle \{a^{n}b^{n}c^{n}d^{n}|n>0\}}$

Dyck language

The language of all properly matched parentheses is generated by the grammar ${\displaystyle S\to SS~|~(S)~|~\varepsilon }$.

Properties

Context-free parsing

The context-free nature of the language makes it simple to parse with a pushdown automaton.

Determining an instance of the membership problem; i.e. given a string ${\displaystyle w}$, determine whether ${\displaystyle w\in L(G)}$ where ${\displaystyle L}$ is the language generated by a given grammar ${\displaystyle G}$; is also known as recognition. Context-free recognition for Chomsky normal form grammars was shown by Leslie G. Valiant to be reducible to boolean matrix multiplication, thus inheriting its complexity upper bound of O(n^2.3728639).^{[2][3][note 2]} Conversely, Lillian Lee has shown O(n^3−ε) boolean matrix multiplication to be reducible to O(n^3−3ε) CFG parsing, thus establishing some kind of lower bound for the latter.^[4]

Practical uses of context-free languages require also to produce a derivation tree that exhibits the structure that the grammar associates with the given string. The process of producing this tree is called parsing. Known parsers have a time complexity that is cubic in the size of the string that is parsed.

Formally, the set of all context-free languages is identical to the set of languages accepted by pushdown automata (PDA). Parser algorithms for context-free languages include the CYK algorithm and Earley's Algorithm.

A special subclass of context-free languages are the deterministic context-free languages which are defined as the set of languages accepted by a deterministic pushdown automaton and can be parsed by a LR(k) parser.^[5]

See also parsing expression grammar as an alternative approach to grammar and parser.

Closure

Context-free languages are closed under the following operations. That is, if L and P are context-free languages, the following languages are context-free as well:

• the union ${\displaystyle L\cup P}$ of L and P
• the reversal of L
• the concatenation ${\displaystyle L\cdot P}$ of L and P
• the Kleene star ${\displaystyle L^{*}}$ of L
• the image ${\displaystyle \varphi (L)}$ of L under a homomorphism ${\displaystyle \varphi }$
• the image ${\displaystyle \varphi ^{-1}(L)}$ of L under an inverse homomorphism ${\displaystyle \varphi ^{-1}}$
• the
  cyclic shift
  of L (the language ${\displaystyle \{vu:uv\in L\}}$)

Context-free languages are not closed under complement, intersection, or difference. This was proved by Scheinberg in 1960.^[6] However, if L is a context-free language and D is a regular language then both their intersection ${\displaystyle L\cap D}$ and their difference ${\displaystyle L\setminus D}$ are context-free languages.

Nonclosure under intersection, complement, and difference

The context-free languages are not closed under intersection. This can be seen by taking the languages ${\displaystyle A=\{a^{n}b^{n}c^{m}\mid m,n\geq 0\}}$ and ${\displaystyle B=\{a^{m}b^{n}c^{n}\mid m,n\geq 0\}}$, which are both context-free.^{[note 3]} Their intersection is ${\displaystyle A\cap B=\{a^{n}b^{n}c^{n}\mid n\geq 0\}}$, which can be shown to be non-context-free by the pumping lemma for context-free languages.

Context-free languages are also not closed under complementation, as for any languages A and B: ${\displaystyle A\cap B={\overline {{\overline {A}}\cup {\overline {B}}}}}$.

Context-free language are also not closed under difference: L^C = Σ^* \ L.^[6]

Decidability

In formal language theory, questions about regular languages are always decidable, but ones about context-free languages are often not. It is decidable whether such a language is finite, but not whether it contains every possible string, is regular, is unambiguous, or is equivalent to a language with a different grammar.^[7]

The following problems are undecidable for arbitrarily given context-free grammars A and B:

• Equivalence: is ${\displaystyle L(A)=L(B)}$?^[8]
• Disjointness: is ${\displaystyle L(A)\cap L(B)=\emptyset }$ ?^[9] However, the intersection of a context-free language and a regular language is context-free,^[10][11] hence the variant of the problem where B is a regular grammar is decidable (see "Emptiness" below).
• Containment: is ${\displaystyle L(A)\subseteq L(B)}$ ?^[12] Again, the variant of the problem where B is a regular grammar is decidable,^{[citation needed]} while that where A is regular is generally not.^[13]
• Universality: is ${\displaystyle L(A)=\Sigma ^{*}}$ ?^[14]

The following problems are decidable for arbitrary context-free languages:

• Emptiness: Given a context-free grammar A, is ${\displaystyle L(A)=\emptyset }$ ?^[15]
• Finiteness: Given a context-free grammar A, is ${\displaystyle L(A)}$ finite?^[16]
• Membership: Given a context-free grammar G, and a word ${\displaystyle w}$, does ${\displaystyle w\in L(G)}$ ? Efficient polynomial-time algorithms for the membership problem are the CYK algorithm and Earley's Algorithm.

According to Hopcroft, Motwani, Ullman (2003),^[17] many of the fundamental closure and (un)decidability properties of context-free languages were shown in the 1961 paper of Bar-Hillel, Perles, and Shamir^[18]

Languages that are not context-free

The set ${\displaystyle \{a^{n}b^{n}c^{n}d^{n}|n>0\}}$ is a context-sensitive language, but there does not exist a context-free grammar generating this language.^[19] So there exist context-sensitive languages which are not context-free. To prove that a given language is not context-free, one may employ the pumping lemma for context-free languages^[18] or a number of other methods, such as Ogden's lemma or Parikh's theorem.^[20]

Notes