Why descriptive power of context-free grammar is greater than regular expression?

Question

Below is a saying from this article.

Regular expressions sit just beneath context-free grammars in descriptive power: you could rewrite any regular expression into a grammar that represents the strings matched by the expression. But, the reverse is not true: not every grammar can be converted into an equivalent regular expression.

Can anyone tell me if the saying is correct and why? Per my understanding, they should have same power and the differernce is a context-free grammar has recursive definition.

Answer 1

Let the set of languages that can be represented by regular languages be $R$. And set of languages that can be generated by a context free grammar be $G$. Then surely $ R \subset G$. For the proof that every regular language has a context free grammar that generates it, I encourage you to look up Michael Sipser's book on complexity. And for the second part, there are many languages which have a context free grammar generating them but are not regular. For example $L=\{ww^{reverse}\}$, where $w^{reverse}$ is reverse of the string $w$. How do we know $L$ has a context free grammar ( you can easily come up with a push down automaton for it ), look up Sipsers. And look up pumping lemma in the book to prove $L$ is not regular.
To get an intuition, any regular language can be represented by a finite state automaton ($FSA$) and vice versa. And any context free grammar can be represented by a pushdown automaton ($PDA$) and vice versa (again, read the proof from Sipser). And in a $PDA$, in addition to the states (like in $FSA$), you also have an infinite stack. Thus intuitively context free grammars have "power" greater than that of $FSA$.