A pushdown automaton or a context-free grammar - which is more economical?
From MaRDI portal
Publication:1165026
Cites work
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3488626 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3499244 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3529421 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3293666 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3311755 (Why is no real title available?)
- A helpful result for proving inherent ambiguity
- A note on the succinctness of descriptions of deterministic languages
- Economy of description by parsers, DPDA's, and PDA's
- Finite-Turn Pushdown Automata
- Optimization of LR(k) parsers
- Size complexity in context-free grammars forms
- Succinctness of Descriptions of Unambiguous Context-Free Languages
Cited in
(11)- Simulating finite automata with context-free grammars.
- Syntax checking either way
- Detecting useless transitions in pushdown automata
- DETERMINISTIC PUSHDOWN AUTOMATA AND UNARY LANGUAGES
- Detecting useless transitions in pushdown automata
- Deterministic Pushdown Automata and Unary Languages
- Generating all permutations by context-free grammars in Greibach normal form
- Unary context-free grammars and pushdown automata, descriptional complexity and auxiliary space lower bounds.
- On reducing the number of stack symbols in a PDA
- Syntax checking either way
- On reducing the number of states in a PDA
This page was built for publication: A pushdown automaton or a context-free grammar - which is more economical?
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1165026)
