# Why can't a left-recursive, non-deterministic, or ambiguous grammar be LL(1)? [closed]

I've learned from several sources that an LL(1) grammar is:

1. unambiguous,
2. not left-recursive,
3. and, deterministic (left-factorized).

What I can't fully understand is why the above is true for any LL(1) grammar. I know the LL(1) parsing table will have multiple entries at some cells, but what I really want to get is a formal and general (not with an example) proof to the following proposition(s):

A left-recursive (1), non-deterministic (2), or ambiguous (3) grammar is not LL(1).

## closed as too broad by rici, Evil, Discrete lizard♦, Juho, Thomas KlimpelJan 28 at 23:00

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I have done some more research, and I think I've found a solution for the 1st and 2nd questions, as for the 3rd one, I found an existing solution on StackOverflow for it, the proof attempts are written below:

We start by writing the three rules of the definition of an LL(1) grammar:

For every production A -> α | β with α ≠ β:

1. FIRST(α) ∩ FIRST(β) = Ø.
2. If β =>* ε then FIRST(α) ∩ FOLLOW(A) = Ø (also, if α =>* ε then FIRST(β) ∩ FOLLOW(A) = Ø).
3. Including ε in rule (1) implies that at most one of α and β can derive ε.

Proposition 1: A non-factored grammar is not LL(1).

Proof:

If a grammar G is non-factored then there exists a production in G of the form:

A -> ωα1 | ωα2 | ... | ωαn


(where αi is the i-th α, not the symbols α and i), with α1 ≠ α2 ≠ ... ≠ αn. We can then easily show that:

∩(i=1,..,n) FIRST(ωαi) ≠ Ø


which contradicts rule (1) of the definition, thus, a non-factored grammar is not LL(1). ∎

Proposition 2: A left-recursive grammar is not LL(1).

Proof:

If a grammar is left-recursive then there exists a production in G of the form:

S -> Sα | β


Three cases arise here:

1. If FIRST(β) ≠ {ε} then:

    FIRST(β) ⊆ FIRST(S)

=>  FIRST(β) ∩ FIRST(Sα) ≠ Ø

which contradicts rule (1) of the definition.

2. If FIRST(β) = {ε} then:

2.1. If ε ∈ FIRST(α) then:

ε ∈ FIRST(Sα)

which contradicts rule (3) of the definition.

2.2. If ε ∉ FIRST(α) then:

    FIRST(α) ⊆ FIRST(S) (because β =>* ε)

=>  FIRST(α) ⊆ FIRST(Sα) ........ (I)

we also know that:

FIRST(α) ⊆ FOLLOW(S) ........ (II)

by (I) and (II), we have:

FIRST(Sα) ∩ FOLLOW(S) ≠ Ø

and since β =>* ε, this contradicts rule (2) of the definition.

In every case we arrive at a contradiction, hence, a left-recursive grammar is not LL(1). ∎

Proposition 3: An ambiguous grammar is not LL(1).

Proof:

While the above proofs are mine, this one is not, it's by Kevin A. Naudé which I got from his answer that is linked below:

https://stackoverflow.com/a/18969767/6275103