Re: Ambuguity of CFG
- From: Rick Decker <rdecker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:08:28 -0500
stylez wrote:
Hello,If I understand you correctly, you can say whatever you want, but
I know that all simple grammars have the special property that they're
unambigous grammars. I was trying to prove by using the fact that all
DFA/NFA and R.E.s are equiv. to CFG and that they hold a single
solution and therefore create an unambigous grammar. The problem with
this statement is that not all CFG are regular, so I was wondering if
anyone had another insight on how to prove this statement so that I can
say it holds. Thank you in advance.
there are context-free grammars that are ambiguous, no matter what
you say. Even worse, there are context-free languages that
are inherently ambiguous, in that it is impossible to find
nonambiguous grammars for them.
Regards,
Rick
.
- References:
- Ambuguity of CFG
- From: stylez
- Ambuguity of CFG
- Prev by Date: Re: languages
- Next by Date: Re: Ambuguity of CFG
- Previous by thread: Ambuguity of CFG
- Next by thread: Re: Ambuguity of CFG
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|