In formal language theory, a context-free grammar is said to be in Chomsky normal form if all of its production rules are of the form:
- or
- or
where, and are nonterminal symbols, α is a terminal symbol (a symbol that represents a constant value), is the start symbol, and ε is the empty string. Also, neither nor may be the start symbol, and the third production rule can only appear if ε is in L(G), namely, the language produced by the Context-Free Grammar G.
Every grammar in Chomsky normal form is context-free, and conversely, every context-free grammar can be transformed into an equivalent one which is in Chomsky normal form. Several algorithms for performing such a transformation are known. Transformations are described in most textbooks on automata theory, such as Hopcroft and Ullman, 1979. As pointed out by Lange and Leiß, the drawback of these transformations is that they can lead to an undesirable bloat in grammar size. The size of a grammar is the sum of the sizes of its production rules, where the size of a rule is one plus the length of its right-hand side. Using to denote the size of the original grammar, the size blow-up in the worst case may range from to, depending on the transformation algorithm used.
Read more about Chomsky Normal Form: Alternative Definition, Converting A Grammar To Chomsky Normal Form
Famous quotes containing the words chomsky, normal and/or form:
“Hence, a generative grammar must be a system of rules that can iterate to generate an indefinitely large number of structures. This system of rules can be analyzed into the three major components of a generative grammar: the syntactic, phonological, and semantic components.”
—Noam Chomsky (b. 1928)
“Marriages will survive despite enormous strains. A lover will ask, “Is he happy? Can he still love her?” They don’t realise that’s not the point, it’s all the normal things they do together—going to the supermarket, choosing wallpaper, doing things with the children.”
—Carol Clewlow (b. 1947)
“This conflict between the powers of love and chastity ... it ended apparently in the triumph of chastity. Love was suppressed, held in darkness and chains, by fear, conventionality, aversion, or a tremulous yearning to be pure.... But this triumph of chastity was only an apparent, a pyrrhic victory. It would break through the ban of chastity, it would emerge—if in a form so altered as to be unrecognizable.”
—Thomas Mann (1875–1955)