1 / 22

Pushdown Automata Part II: PDAs and CFG

Pushdown Automata Part II: PDAs and CFG. Chapter 12. PDAs and Context-Free Grammars. Theorem : The class of languages accepted by PDAs is exactly the class of context-free languages. Recall: context-free languages are languages that can be defined with context-free grammars.

deva
Download Presentation

Pushdown Automata Part II: PDAs and CFG

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pushdown Automata Part II: PDAs and CFG Chapter 12

  2. PDAs and Context-Free Grammars Theorem: The class of languages accepted by PDAs is exactly the class of context-free languages. Recall: context-free languages are languages that can be defined with context-free grammars. Restate theorem: Can describe with context-free grammar Can accept by PDA

  3. Going One Way • Lemma: Each context-free language is accepted by some PDA. • Proof (by construction): • The idea: Let the stack do the work. • Two approaches: • Top down • Bottom up

  4. Top Down The idea: Let the stack keep track of expectations. Example: Arithmetic expressions EE + T ET TTF TF F (E) Fid (1) (q, , E), (q, E+T) (7) (q, id, id), (q, ) (2) (q, , E), (q, T) (8) (q, (, ( ), (q, ) (3) (q, , T), (q, T*F) (9) (q, ), ) ), (q, ) (4) (q, , T), (q, F) (10) (q, +, +), (q, ) (5) (q, , F), (q, (E) ) (11) (q, , ), (q, ) (6) (q, , F), (q, id)

  5. A Top-Down Parser Answering “Could G generate w?” starting from S. The outline of M is: M = ({p, q}, , V, , p, {q}), where  contains: ● The start-up transition ((p, , ), (q, S)). ● For each rule Xs1s2…sn. in R, the transition: ((q, , X), (q, s1s2…sn)). ● For each character c, the transition: ((q, c, c), (q, )).

  6. Example of the Construction L = {anb*an} 0 (p, , ), (q, S) (1) S  1 (q, , S), (q, ) (2) S  B 2 (q, , S), (q, B) (3) S aSa 3 (q, , S), (q, aSa) (4) B  4 (q, , B), (q, ) (5) B bB 5 (q, , B), (q, bB) 6 (q, a, a), (q, ) input = a a b b a a 7 (q, b, b), (q, ) trans state unread input stack p a a b b a a 0 q a a b b a a S 3 q a a b b a aaSa 6 q a b b a a Sa 3 q a b b a aaSaa 6 q b b a a Saa 2 q b b a a Baa 5 q b b a abBaa 7 q b a a Baa 5 q b a abBaa 7 q a a Baa 4 q a aaa 6 q aa 6 q 

  7. Bottom-Up The idea: Let the stack keep track of what has been found. (1) EE + T (2) ET (3) TTF (4) TF (5) F (E) (6) Fid Reduce Transitions: (1) (p, , T + E), (p, E) (2) (p, , T), (p, E) (3) (p, , FT), (p, T) (4) (p, , F), (p, T) (5) (p, , )E( ), (p, F) (6) (p, , id), (p, F) Shift Transitions (7) (p, id, ), (p, id) (8) (p, (, ), (p, () (9) (p, ), ), (p, )) (10) (p, +, ), (p, +) (11) (p, , ), (p, )

  8. A Bottom-Up Parser Answering “Could G generate w?” starting from w. The outline of M is: M = ({p, q}, , V, , p, {q}), where  contains: ● The shift transitions: ((p, c, ), (p, c)), for each c. ● The reduce transitions: ((p, , (s1s2…sn.)R), (p, X)), for each rule Xs1s2…sn. in G. ● The finish up transition: ((p, , S), (q, )).

  9. Example of the Construction L = {anb*an} 0 (p, , S), (q, ) (1) S  1 (p, , ), (p, S) (2) S  B 2 (p, , B), (p, S) (3) S aSa 3 (p, , aSa), (p, S) (4) B  4 (p, , ), (p, B) (5) B bB 5 (p, , Bb), (p, B) 6 (p, a, ), (p, a) input = a a b b a a 7 (p, b, ), (p, b) trans state unread input stack p a a b b a a 6 p a b b a aa 6 p b b a aaa 7 p b a abaa 7 p a abbaa 4 p a a Bbbaa 5 p a a Bbaa 5 p a a Baa 2 p a a Saa 6 p aaSaa 3 p a Sa 6 p  aSa 3 p  S 0 q 

  10. Notice Nondeterminism Machines constructed with the algorithm are often nondeterministic, even when they needn't be. This happens even with trivial languages. Example: AnBn = {anbn: n 0} A grammar for AnBn is: A PDA M built top-down for AnBn is: (0) ((p, , ), (q, S)) [1] SaSb (1) ((q, , S), (q, aSb)) [2] S (2) ((q, , S), (q, )) (3) ((q, a, a), (q, )) (4) ((q, b, b), (q, )) But transitions 1 and 2 make M nondeterministic. A directly constructed machine for AnBn: How about bottom-up?

  11. Going The Other Way Lemma: If a language is accepted by a pushdown automaton M, it is context-free (i.e., it can be described by a context-free grammar). Proof (by construction): (We will skip this to Slide 16, as it’s rarely necessarily going this way in practice!) Step 1: Convert M to restricted normal form: ● M has a start state s that does nothing except push a special symbol # onto the stack and then transfer to a state s from which the rest of the computation begins. There must be no transitions back to s. ● M has a single accepting state a. All transitions into a pop # and read no input. ● Every transition in M, except the one from s, pops exactly one symbol from the stack.

  12. Converting to Restricted Normal Form Example: {wcwR : w {a, b}*} Add s and a: Pop no more than one symbol:

  13. M in Restricted Normal Form [1] [3] [2] Pop exactly one symbol: Replace [1], [2] and [3] with: Must have one transition for everything that could have been on the top of the stack so it can be popped and then pushed back on. [1] ((s, a, #), (s, a#)), ((s, a, a), (s, aa)), ((s, a, b), (s, ab)), [2] ((s, b, #), (s, b#)), ((s, b, a), (s, ba)), ((s, b, b), (s, bb)), [3] ((s, c, #), (f, #)), ((s, c, a), (f, a)), ((s, c, b), (f, b))

  14. Second Step - Creating the Productions Example: WcWR M = The basic idea – simulate a leftmost derivation of M on any input string.

  15. Second Step - Creating the Productions Example: abcba

  16. Nondeterminism and Halting 1. There are context-free languages for which no deterministic PDA exists. 2. It is possible that a PDA may ● not halt, ● not ever finish reading its input. 3. There exists no algorithm to minimize a PDA. It is undecidable whether a PDA is minimal.

  17. Nondeterminism and Halting It is possible that a PDA may ● not halt, ● not ever finish reading its input. Let  = {a} and consider M = L(M) = {a}: (1, a, ) |- (2, a, a) |- (3, , ) On any other input except a: ● M will never halt. ● M will never finish reading its input unless its input is . Example: aa

  18. Solutions to the Problem ● For NDFSMs: ● Convert to deterministic, or ● Simulate all paths in parallel. ● For NDPDAs: ● Impossible to simulate all paths in parallel – each path would need its won stack ● Formal solutions usually involve changing the grammar  parse tree may not make sense ● Practical solutions that: ● Preserve the structure of the grammar, but ● Only work on a subset of the CFLs.

  19. Alternative Equivalent Definitions of a PDA (Skip to Slide 21) • Accept by accepting state at end of string (i.e., we don't care about the stack). • From M (in our definition) we build M (in this one): • 1. Initially, let M = M. • 2. Create a new start state s. Add the transition: • ((s, , ), (s, #)). • 3. Create a new accepting state qa. • 4. For each accepting state a in M do, • 4.1 Add the transition ((a, , #), (qa, )). • 5. Make qa the only accepting state in M.

  20. Example The balanced parentheses language

  21. What About These? ● FSM plus FIFO queue (instead of stack)? ● FSM plus two stacks?

  22. Comparing Regular and Context-Free Languages • Regular Languages Context-Free Languages • ● regular exprs. • ● or • ● regular grammars ● context-free grammars • ● recognize ● parse • ● = DFSMs ● = NDPDAs

More Related