Consider the following grammar
S -> aPbSQ | a
Q -> tS | ε
P -> r
While constructing the DFA we can see there shall be a state which contains Items
Q -> .tS
Q -> . (epsilon as a blank string)
since t is in follow(Q) there appears to be a shift - reduce conflict.
Can we conclude the nature of the grammar isn't SLR(1) ?
(Please ignore my incorrect previous answer.)
Yes, the fact that you have a shift/reduce conflict in this configuring set is sufficient to show that this grammar isn't SLR(1).
Related
How do you identify whether a grammar is LL(1), LR(0), or SLR(1)?
Can anyone please explain it using this example, or any other example?
X → Yz | a
Y → bZ | ε
Z → ε
To check if a grammar is LL(1), one option is to construct the LL(1) parsing table and check for any conflicts. These conflicts can be
FIRST/FIRST conflicts, where two different productions would have to be predicted for a nonterminal/terminal pair.
FIRST/FOLLOW conflicts, where two different productions are predicted, one representing that some production should be taken and expands out to a nonzero number of symbols, and one representing that a production should be used indicating that some nonterminal should be ultimately expanded out to the empty string.
FOLLOW/FOLLOW conflicts, where two productions indicating that a nonterminal should ultimately be expanded to the empty string conflict with one another.
Let's try this on your grammar by building the FIRST and FOLLOW sets for each of the nonterminals. Here, we get that
FIRST(X) = {a, b, z}
FIRST(Y) = {b, epsilon}
FIRST(Z) = {epsilon}
We also have that the FOLLOW sets are
FOLLOW(X) = {$}
FOLLOW(Y) = {z}
FOLLOW(Z) = {z}
From this, we can build the following LL(1) parsing table:
a b z $
X a Yz Yz
Y bZ eps
Z eps
Since we can build this parsing table with no conflicts, the grammar is LL(1).
To check if a grammar is LR(0) or SLR(1), we begin by building up all of the LR(0) configurating sets for the grammar. In this case, assuming that X is your start symbol, we get the following:
(1)
X' -> .X
X -> .Yz
X -> .a
Y -> .
Y -> .bZ
(2)
X' -> X.
(3)
X -> Y.z
(4)
X -> Yz.
(5)
X -> a.
(6)
Y -> b.Z
Z -> .
(7)
Y -> bZ.
From this, we can see that the grammar is not LR(0) because there is a shift/reduce conflicts in state (1). Specifically, because we have the shift item X → .a and Y → ., we can't tell whether to shift the a or reduce the empty string. More generally, no grammar with ε-productions is LR(0).
However, this grammar might be SLR(1). To see this, we augment each reduction with the lookahead set for the particular nonterminals. This gives back this set of SLR(1) configurating sets:
(1)
X' -> .X
X -> .Yz [$]
X -> .a [$]
Y -> . [z]
Y -> .bZ [z]
(2)
X' -> X.
(3)
X -> Y.z [$]
(4)
X -> Yz. [$]
(5)
X -> a. [$]
(6)
Y -> b.Z [z]
Z -> . [z]
(7)
Y -> bZ. [z]
The shift/reduce conflict in state (1) has been eliminated because we only reduce when the lookahead is z, which doesn't conflict with any of the other items.
If you have no FIRST/FIRST conflicts and no FIRST/FOLLOW conflicts, your grammar is LL(1).
An example of a FIRST/FIRST conflict:
S -> Xb | Yc
X -> a
Y -> a
By seeing only the first input symbol "a", you cannot know whether to apply the production S -> Xb or S -> Yc, because "a" is in the FIRST set of both X and Y.
An example of a FIRST/FOLLOW conflict:
S -> AB
A -> fe | ε
B -> fg
By seeing only the first input symbol "f", you cannot decide whether to apply the production A -> fe or A -> ε, because "f" is in both the FIRST set of A and the FOLLOW set of A (A can be parsed as ε/empty and B as f).
Notice that if you have no epsilon-productions you cannot have a FIRST/FOLLOW conflict.
Simple answer:A grammar is said to be an LL(1),if the associated LL(1) parsing table has atmost one production in each table entry.
Take the simple grammar A -->Aa|b.[A is non-terminal & a,b are terminals]
then find the First and follow sets A.
First{A}={b}.
Follow{A}={$,a}.
Parsing table for Our grammar.Terminals as columns and Nonterminal S as a row element.
a b $
--------------------------------------------
S | A-->a |
| A-->Aa. |
--------------------------------------------
As [S,b] contains two Productions there is a confusion as to which rule to choose.So it is not LL(1).
Some simple checks to see whether a grammar is LL(1) or not.
Check 1: The Grammar should not be left Recursive.
Example: E --> E+T. is not LL(1) because it is Left recursive.
Check 2: The Grammar should be Left Factored.
Left factoring is required when two or more grammar rule choices share a common prefix string.
Example: S-->A+int|A.
Check 3:The Grammar should not be ambiguous.
These are some simple checks.
LL(1) grammar is Context free unambiguous grammar which can be parsed by LL(1) parsers.
In LL(1)
First L stands for scanning input from Left to Right. Second L stands
for Left Most Derivation. 1 stands for using one input symbol at each
step.
For Checking grammar is LL(1) you can draw predictive parsing table. And if you find any multiple entries in table then you can say grammar is not LL(1).
Their is also short cut to check if the grammar is LL(1) or not .
Shortcut Technique
With these two steps we can check if it LL(1) or not.
Both of them have to be satisfied.
1.If we have the production:A->a1|a2|a3|a4|.....|an.
Then,First(a(i)) intersection First(a(j)) must be phi(empty set)[a(i)-a subscript i.]
2.For every non terminal 'A',if First(A) contains epsilon
Then First(A) intersection Follow(A) must be phi(empty set).
How do you eliminate a left recursion of the following type. I can't seem to be able to apply the general rule on this particular one.
A -> A | a | b
By using the elimination rule you get:
A -> aA' | bA'
A' -> A' | epsilon
Which still has left recursion.
Does this say anything about the grammar being/not being LL(1)?
Thank you.
Notice that the rule
A → A
is, in a sense, entirely useless. It doesn't do anything to a derivation to apply this rule. As a result, we can safely remove it from the grammar without changing what the grammar produces. This leaves
A → a | b
which is LL(1).
Question:
Given the following grammar, fix it to an LR(O) grammar:
S -> S' $
S'-> aS'b | T
T -> cT | c
Thoughts
I've been trying this for quite sometime, using automatic tools for checking my fixed grammars, with no success. Our professor likes asking this kind of questions on test without giving us a methodology for approaching this (except for repeated trying). Is there any method that can be applied to answer these kind of questions? Can anyone show this method can be applied on this example?
I don't know of an automatic procedure, but the basic idea is to defer decisions. That is, if at a particular state in the parse, both shift and reduce actions are possible, find a way to defer the reduction.
In the LR(0) parser, you can make a decision based on the token you just shifted, but not on the token you (might be) about to shift. So you need to move decisions to the end of productions, in a manner of speaking.
For example, your language consists of all sentences { ancmbn$ | n ≥ 0, m > 0}. If we restrict that to n > 0, then an LR(0) grammar can be constructed by deferring the reduction decision to the point following a b:
S -> S' $.
S' -> U | a S' b.
U -> a c T.
T -> b | c T.
That grammar is LR(0). In the original grammar, at the itemset including T -> c . and T -> c . T, both shift and reduce are possible: shift c and reduce before b. By moving the b into the production for T, we defer the decision until after the shift: after shifting b, a reduction is required; after c, the reduction is impossible.
But that forces every sentence to have at least one b. It omits sentences for which n = 0 (that is, the regular language c*$). That subset has an LR(0) grammar:
S -> S' $.
S' -> c | S' c.
We can construct the union of these two languages in a straight-forward manner, renaming one of the S's:
S -> S1' $ | S2' $.
S1' -> U | a S1' b.
U -> a c T.
T -> b | c T.
S2' -> c | S2' c.
This grammar is LR(0), but the form in which the end-of-input sentinel $ has been included seems to be cheating. At least, it violates the rule for augmented grammars, because an augmented grammar's base rule is always S -> S' $ where S' and $ are symbols not used in the original grammar.
It might seem that we could avoid that technicality by right-factoring:
S -> S' $
S' -> S1' | S2'
Unfortunately, while that grammar is still deterministic, and does recognise exactly the original language, it is not LR(0).
(Many thanks to #templatetypedef for checking the original answer, and identifying a flaw, and also to #Dennis, who observed that c* was omitted.)
How do you identify whether a grammar is LL(1), LR(0), or SLR(1)?
Can anyone please explain it using this example, or any other example?
X → Yz | a
Y → bZ | ε
Z → ε
To check if a grammar is LL(1), one option is to construct the LL(1) parsing table and check for any conflicts. These conflicts can be
FIRST/FIRST conflicts, where two different productions would have to be predicted for a nonterminal/terminal pair.
FIRST/FOLLOW conflicts, where two different productions are predicted, one representing that some production should be taken and expands out to a nonzero number of symbols, and one representing that a production should be used indicating that some nonterminal should be ultimately expanded out to the empty string.
FOLLOW/FOLLOW conflicts, where two productions indicating that a nonterminal should ultimately be expanded to the empty string conflict with one another.
Let's try this on your grammar by building the FIRST and FOLLOW sets for each of the nonterminals. Here, we get that
FIRST(X) = {a, b, z}
FIRST(Y) = {b, epsilon}
FIRST(Z) = {epsilon}
We also have that the FOLLOW sets are
FOLLOW(X) = {$}
FOLLOW(Y) = {z}
FOLLOW(Z) = {z}
From this, we can build the following LL(1) parsing table:
a b z $
X a Yz Yz
Y bZ eps
Z eps
Since we can build this parsing table with no conflicts, the grammar is LL(1).
To check if a grammar is LR(0) or SLR(1), we begin by building up all of the LR(0) configurating sets for the grammar. In this case, assuming that X is your start symbol, we get the following:
(1)
X' -> .X
X -> .Yz
X -> .a
Y -> .
Y -> .bZ
(2)
X' -> X.
(3)
X -> Y.z
(4)
X -> Yz.
(5)
X -> a.
(6)
Y -> b.Z
Z -> .
(7)
Y -> bZ.
From this, we can see that the grammar is not LR(0) because there is a shift/reduce conflicts in state (1). Specifically, because we have the shift item X → .a and Y → ., we can't tell whether to shift the a or reduce the empty string. More generally, no grammar with ε-productions is LR(0).
However, this grammar might be SLR(1). To see this, we augment each reduction with the lookahead set for the particular nonterminals. This gives back this set of SLR(1) configurating sets:
(1)
X' -> .X
X -> .Yz [$]
X -> .a [$]
Y -> . [z]
Y -> .bZ [z]
(2)
X' -> X.
(3)
X -> Y.z [$]
(4)
X -> Yz. [$]
(5)
X -> a. [$]
(6)
Y -> b.Z [z]
Z -> . [z]
(7)
Y -> bZ. [z]
The shift/reduce conflict in state (1) has been eliminated because we only reduce when the lookahead is z, which doesn't conflict with any of the other items.
If you have no FIRST/FIRST conflicts and no FIRST/FOLLOW conflicts, your grammar is LL(1).
An example of a FIRST/FIRST conflict:
S -> Xb | Yc
X -> a
Y -> a
By seeing only the first input symbol "a", you cannot know whether to apply the production S -> Xb or S -> Yc, because "a" is in the FIRST set of both X and Y.
An example of a FIRST/FOLLOW conflict:
S -> AB
A -> fe | ε
B -> fg
By seeing only the first input symbol "f", you cannot decide whether to apply the production A -> fe or A -> ε, because "f" is in both the FIRST set of A and the FOLLOW set of A (A can be parsed as ε/empty and B as f).
Notice that if you have no epsilon-productions you cannot have a FIRST/FOLLOW conflict.
Simple answer:A grammar is said to be an LL(1),if the associated LL(1) parsing table has atmost one production in each table entry.
Take the simple grammar A -->Aa|b.[A is non-terminal & a,b are terminals]
then find the First and follow sets A.
First{A}={b}.
Follow{A}={$,a}.
Parsing table for Our grammar.Terminals as columns and Nonterminal S as a row element.
a b $
--------------------------------------------
S | A-->a |
| A-->Aa. |
--------------------------------------------
As [S,b] contains two Productions there is a confusion as to which rule to choose.So it is not LL(1).
Some simple checks to see whether a grammar is LL(1) or not.
Check 1: The Grammar should not be left Recursive.
Example: E --> E+T. is not LL(1) because it is Left recursive.
Check 2: The Grammar should be Left Factored.
Left factoring is required when two or more grammar rule choices share a common prefix string.
Example: S-->A+int|A.
Check 3:The Grammar should not be ambiguous.
These are some simple checks.
LL(1) grammar is Context free unambiguous grammar which can be parsed by LL(1) parsers.
In LL(1)
First L stands for scanning input from Left to Right. Second L stands
for Left Most Derivation. 1 stands for using one input symbol at each
step.
For Checking grammar is LL(1) you can draw predictive parsing table. And if you find any multiple entries in table then you can say grammar is not LL(1).
Their is also short cut to check if the grammar is LL(1) or not .
Shortcut Technique
With these two steps we can check if it LL(1) or not.
Both of them have to be satisfied.
1.If we have the production:A->a1|a2|a3|a4|.....|an.
Then,First(a(i)) intersection First(a(j)) must be phi(empty set)[a(i)-a subscript i.]
2.For every non terminal 'A',if First(A) contains epsilon
Then First(A) intersection Follow(A) must be phi(empty set).
I do need your help.
I have these productions:
1) A--> aAb
2) A--> bAa
3) A--> ε
I should apply the Chomsky Normal Form (CNF).
In order to apply the above rule I should:
eliminate ε producions
eliminate unitary productions
remove useless symbols
Immediately I get stuck. The reason is that A is a nullable symbol (ε is part of its body)
Of course I can't remove the A symbol.
Can anyone help me to get the final solution?
As the Wikipedia notes, there are two definitions of Chomsky Normal Form, which differ in the treatment of ε productions. You will have to pick the one where these are allowed, as otherwise you will never get an equivalent grammar: your grammar produces the empty string, while a CNF grammar following the other definition isn't capable of that.
To begin conversion to Chomsky normal form (using Definition (1) provided by the Wikipedia page), you need to find an equivalent essentially noncontracting grammar. A grammar G with start symbol S is essentially noncontracting iff
1. S is not a recursive variable
2. G has no ε-rules other than S -> ε if ε ∈ L(G)
Calling your grammar G, an equivalent grammar G' with a non-recursive start symbol is:
G' : S -> A
A -> aAb | bAa | ε
Clearly, the set of nullable variables of G' is {S,A}, since A -> ε is a production in G' and S -> A is a chain rule. I assume that you have been given an algorithm for removing ε-rules from a grammar. That algorithm should produce a grammar similar to:
G'' : S -> A | ε
A -> aAb | bAa | ab | ba
The grammar G'' is essentially noncontracting; you can now apply the remaining algorithms to the grammar to find an equivalent grammar in Chomsky normal form.