Consider the following grammar where Vn is {X, Y} and Vt is {a,b} and the following production X- Ya | ɛ Y → a|b In LL1 parse table T, the entries for T[X,a], T[X,$],T[Y,b], T[Y,$] respectively is First(X)={a, b,ɛ } Follow (X)={$} First(Y)={a, b} Follow(Y)={a} a 大 Y A. X- Ya v T[X,a] B. X-E v T[X,$] C. Y - a v T[Y,b] D. ERROR v T[Y,$] E. Y- b

Consider the following grammar where Vn is {X, Y} and Vt is {a,b} and the following production X- Ya | ɛ Y → a|b In LL1 parse table T, the entries for T[X,a], T[X,$],T[Y,b], T[Y,$] respectively is First(X)={a, b,ɛ } Follow (X)={$} First(Y)={a, b} Follow(Y)={a} a 大 Y A. X- Ya v T[X,a] B. X-E v T[X,$] C. Y - a v T[Y,b] D. ERROR v T[Y,$] E. Y- b

Database System Concepts

7th Edition

ISBN:9780078022159

Author:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan

Publisher:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan

Chapter1: Introduction

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1PE

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

answer the following and explain Establish that L is context-free by building a CF grammar for L = {0n1m: n does not equal 6m and n,m ≥0}
Consider the following grammar: X -> (Y) | bY -> Y, X | X-for the input string ((b),b,(b,b)),show the parsing stack and actions of the parsing SLR(1) parser.- Is this grammar an LR(0) grammar? If not, describe the LR(0) conflict. If so, construct the LR(0) parsing table, and describe how a parse might differ from an SLR(1) parse. Pay attention to the grammar given
Consider the following grammar then answer the questions below: S -> XY X -> Zd | ε Y -> YaXZ | c Z -> b | ε Is the above grammar LL (1) grammar? If not, mention why? And convert it into LL(1).
for the grammars below, determine if they're ambiguous; and if a grammar is ambiguous, find a string that demonstrates the ambiguity and also draw two different parse trees for the string: a) S → aSa | bSb | cSc | a | b | c | ε b) S → ε | ab | ba | aSb | bSa c) S → aSb | C C → ε | c | Cc
Consider the following grammar: X -> (Y) | bY -> Y, X | XA: . List LR(0) items for this grammarb. construct the DFA of these LR(0) itemsc. construct the SLR(1) parsing tabled. for the input string ((b),b,(b,b)),show the parsing stack and actions of the parsing SLR(1) parser.e. Is this grammar an LR(0) grammar? If not, describe the LR(0) conflict. If so, construct the LR(0) parsing table, and describe how a parse might differ from an SLR(1) parse. pay attention to the grammar given
Consider the following grammar then answer the questions below: S -> statements S -> repeat statements while condition S -> repeat statements until condition Is the above grammar LL (1) grammar? If not, mention why? And convert it into LL(1).
Consider the grammar G below in the input alphabet {num, *, /, -}, with non-terminal leading S' in rule 1. S'→S$ S→E - F F→E * E E→num E→num / num a) Build the G grammar automaton. Is this grammar LR(0)? b) If G is not LR(0), list the items present in the DFA state where the conflict occurs. c) Is this grammar SLR? d) If G is SLR, write the non-terminal follow that resolves the LR(0) conflict. (Separate the items in the set with “:”. Ex: a:b )
Consider the following context-free grammar:G = (N, Σ, P, S)N = {S, T}Σ = {a, b, c}Productions in P are:S →aSaS →TT →bTT →TcT →ε(4.a) Write down a derivation of the string abbca from the grammar G.(4.b) Draw a parse tree corresponding to the derivation from part a).(4.c) Is the grammar G ambiguous? Explain your answer.
In Example 6.1, show a derivation tree for the string ababbac, using both the original and the modified grammar. EXAMPLE 6.1 Consider G = ({A, B}, {a, b, c}, A, P) with productions A→a|aaA|abBc,B→abbA|b.A→a|aaA|abBc,B→abbA|b. Using the suggested substitution for the variable B, we get the grammar Ĝ with productions A→a|aaA|ababbAc|abbc,B→abbA|b.A→a|aaA|ababbAc|abbc,B→abbA|b. The new grammar Ĝ is equivalent to G. The string aaabbc has the derivation A ⇒ aaA ⇒ aaabBc ⇒ aaabbc in G, and the corresponding derivation A ⇒ aaA ⇒ aaabbc in Ĝ. Notice that, in this case, the variable B and its associated productions are still in the grammar even though they can no longer play a part in any derivation. We will next show how such unnecessary productions can be removed from a grammar.
Given ({S, a, b}, {a, b}, R, S), where R = {S → ε,S → aSa,S → bSb,S → aSb,S → bSa,S → SS}. Show that this grammar is ambiguous. Present this using parse tree.
1. write a CFG for language L={ aibjck | k=i+j and i,j,k>0 } 2. write a CFG for language L = { w | w=wR } 3. write a CFG for language L = { w | number of (a) in w equals number of (b) in w } 4. show the derivation tree for string (a+a)*a in the following grammar G = ({E,T,F}, {a, +, *, (, )}, R, E}. The set of rules R is: E -> E + T | T T -> T * F | F F -> (E) | a
refer to the grammar S -> aSa | aXa X ->aXa | bYb Y -> bYb | empty where S is the start symbol, non-terminals = {S, X, Y}, terminals = {a, b} This Question: Use the pumping lemma to show that the language generated by this grammar is not regular.