Formal Definition
A formal grammar G = (N, Σ, P, S) (this is the same as G = (V, T, P, S), where N/V is the Non-terminal Variable, and Σ/T is the Terminal) is context-sensitive if all rules in P are of the form
- αAβ → αγβ
where A ∈ N (i.e., A is a single nonterminal), α,β ∈ (N U Σ)* (i.e., α and β are strings of nonterminals and terminals) and γ ∈ (N U Σ)+ (i.e., γ is a nonempty string of nonterminals and terminals).
Some definitions also add that for any production rule of the form u → v of a context-sensitive grammar, it shall be true that |u|≤|v|. Here |u| and |v| denote the length of the strings respectively.
In addition, a rule of the form
- S → λ provided S does not appear on the right side of any rule
where λ represents the empty string is permitted. The addition of the empty string allows the statement that the context sensitive languages are a proper superset of the context free languages, rather than having to make the weaker statement that all context free grammars with no →λ productions are also context sensitive grammars.
The name context-sensitive is explained by the α and β that form the context of A and determine whether A can be replaced with γ or not. This is different from a context-free grammar where the context of a nonterminal is not taken into consideration. (Indeed, every production of a context free grammar is of the form V → w where V is a single nonterminal symbol, and w is a string of terminals and/or nonterminals (w can be empty)).
If the possibility of adding the empty string to a language is added to the strings recognized by the noncontracting grammars (which can never include the empty string) then the languages in these two definitions are identical.
Read more about this topic: Context-sensitive Grammar
Famous quotes containing the words formal and/or definition:
“Two clergymen disputing whether ordination would be valid without the imposition of both hands, the more formal one said, “Do you think the Holy Dove could fly down with only one wing?””
—Horace Walpole (1717–1797)
“... if, as women, we accept a philosophy of history that asserts that women are by definition assimilated into the male universal, that we can understand our past through a male lens—if we are unaware that women even have a history—we live our lives similarly unanchored, drifting in response to a veering wind of myth and bias.”
—Adrienne Rich (b. 1929)