Timeline for Correspondence between automata and formal grammars?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2014 at 19:37 | comment | added | Hendrik Jan | @Tim Yes, confusing. I mean the original formulation suggests a "unique" special natural automaton, whereas there might exist several suitable automata, depending on the algorithm you are using to constrict it. (It is like a many-to-many relation, and not a one-to-one.) | |
| Jun 5, 2014 at 16:15 | comment | added | Tim | Thanks. What is the difference between "It suggests that for every grammar there is a specific automaton" and "It should be read as: for every grammar an automaton can be constructed for the same language"? | |
| Jun 5, 2014 at 8:46 | comment | added | reinierpost | By the way, that paragraph in Wikipedia contains several more errors - it should be fixed. | |
| Jun 5, 2014 at 8:43 | comment | added | reinierpost | What is meant is that the relation between LBAs an CSGs is total. | |
| Jun 5, 2014 at 7:23 | history | answered | Hendrik Jan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |