# Is the given grammar LL(2)?

http://dickgrune.com/Books/PTAPG_1st_Edition/BookBody.pdf

The book by Grune and Jacobs presents an example of a grammar that is $LL(K + 1)$ but not $LL(K)$

The example is $S -> a^kb/a^ka$

The grammar of this type is $LL(K + 1)$ but not $LL(K)$.

I have an example based on the grammar shown. Is this also $LL(2)$ ?

$S-> cca/ccb$

Based on the information above, I just want to confirm that is this grammar also $LL(2)$ but not $LL(1)$ ?

• OkK !! My bad . I don't know how I made that mistake. If $S -> ca/cb$, it is actually $LL(2)$ but not $LL(1)$. By similar argument, $S -> cca/ccb$ is neither $LL(2)$ and $LL(1)$, but actually $LL(3)$. Thanks !! – Garrick Dec 18 '16 at 15:21
It is actually $LL(3)$. Try to prove it yourself.