4
$\begingroup$

I can't find CFG for this language.

$N = \{w ∈ \{0, 1\}^* \mid \text{w contains more } 1\text{s than }0 \text{s}\}$

Basically, it is much easier when order is set (for example, $1$s come after $0$s) but in this situation I got stuck.

I can make a PDA for that but I'm not strong at converting PDA to CFG.

Thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

Simple solution

$$S\to E|E1S\\ E \to 0E1E|1E0E|\varepsilon$$

It's clear that anything generated by $E$ will verify $|u|_0 = |u|_1$ and therefore that anything generated by $S$ will verify $|u|_0 \le |u|_1$.

Claim A: $u\in \mathcal L(E)\iff |u|_0 = |u|_1$

Proof A: By induction on $|u|$.

Since $u\in \mathcal L(E)\iff \overline{u}\in \mathcal L(E)$ (where $\overline{u}$ is $u$ with $0$ and $1$ swapped), we can assume WLOG that $u=1v$. Take $w_1$ the greatest prefix of $v$ so that $|w_1|_0=|w_1|_1$. It exists because $\varepsilon$ is one such prefix. Write $v=w_1w_2$ where $w_2$ is just whatever remains. Since we took $w_1$ the greatest with the property, any prefix of $w_2$ has more $0$s than $1s$. In particular, $w_2$ starts with a $0$. So $w_2=0h$. $w_1$ and $h$ both have as many $0$s as $1$s so by the induction hypothesis, $E\to^*w_1$ and $E\to^*h$. So $E\to0E1E\to^*0w_11h=u$ and we're done.

Claim B: $u\in\mathcal L(S)\iff |u|_0\le |u|_1$

Proof B: Left to the reader. One direction come directly from claim A and the other is by induction on $|u|_1-|u|_0$ (and by taking the greatest prefix for which $|u|_0= |u|_1$ to find the part that comes from $E$).


$\Sigma:= \{0,1\}$

If you want to have more $1$s that $0$s, you just have to make sure that whenever you add a $1$ you add a $0$.

$$S \to E|E1T\\ E \to DE|UE|\varepsilon\\ T \to UT|1T|\varepsilon\\ O \to 0 | 1OO\\ I \to 1|0II\\ \\ D \to 0I\\ U \to 1O$$

This is done with $I$ that means "add one more $1$ than $0$s" (except that it only generates words for which this is false for all their prefixes). Similarly $O$ means "add one more $0$ than $1$s". $U$ therefore means "bounce upwards and come back to where you were" and $D$ "bounce downwards and come back to where you were". $E$ means "bounce upwards or downwards and come back to where you were as many times as you want". $T$ means "(Go one step up or bounce upwards and come back to where you were) as many times as you like". With this interpretation, it feels plausible that $S$ generates what we want because either you take $E$ and it means that you'll have equality, or you take $E1T$ and you'll get strict inequality because once you're done with $E$, you go up once and then $T$ doesn't let you go down so you'll be strictly above the $|v|_1-|v|_0=0$ line.

Here is an example of how $|v|_1-|v|_0$ can evolve with the prefix $v\le u$.

111000000110100111111000111001110                                                              

                               /\                                       
  /\                /\    /\  /                                              
 /  \              /  \  /  \/                                               
/____\____________/____\/_______________________________       
      \          /                                                        
       \  /\/\  /                                                         
        \/    \/  
1I----0I----------1O----11O--111O
U-----D-----------U-----1U---11U-
E-----------------------1T-------                                                   

I'll remove $U$ and $D$ from the grammar and will prove it for this one but it should be clear that those two grammars are equivalent.

$$S \to E|E1T\\ E \to 0IE|1OE|\varepsilon\\ T \to 1OT|1T|\varepsilon\\ O \to 0 | 1 OO\\ I \to 1|0II$$


Claim 1: Define $H(u)$:$|u|_0 > |u|_1$ and for any strict prefix $v<u$, $|u|_0 \le |u|_1$. Then for any $u\in\Sigma^*$,$u\in \mathcal L(O) \iff H(u)$. Note that $H(u)$ implies $H'(u)$:"$|u|_0=|u|_1+1$" and that the last letter of $u$ is $0$.

Proof 1:

  • "$\Rightarrow$": Let $P(n)$: "If $O\to^m u\in \Sigma^*$ for some $m\le n$, then H(u)". We prove $P(n)$ by induction on $n\ge 1$.

    • If $O\to^1 u\in \Sigma^*$, then the production must be $O\to 0$ so that $u=0$ which verifies the properties.

    • If $0\to^{n+1} u \in \Sigma^*$ for $n>0$, then there is $v\in (\Sigma\sqcup \Gamma)^*$ so that $I\to v \to^n u$. The first production can only be $O\to 1OO$ so that $v=1OO$. By the fundamental lemma, $u$ can be written as $u=u_1u_2u_3$ so that $1\to^{n_1} u_1$, $O\to^{n_2} u_2$, $O\to^{n_3} u_3$, $n=n_1+n_2+n_3$. Then $H(u)$ follows from $H(u_2)$ and $H(u_3)$ (which are given by the induction hypothesis because $\forall i, n_i \le n$) and $u=0u_2u_3$.

  • "$\Leftarrow$": Let $P(n)$: "For any $u\in \Sigma^*$ so that $H(u)$, $u\in \mathcal L(O)$". We prove $P(n)$ by induction on $n$.

    • $P(0)$ is vacuously true.

    • Suppose $P(n)$. Let $u\in \Sigma^*$ so that $|u|=n+1$ and $H(u)$. Then $u=av$ for some $a\in \Sigma$ and $v\in\Sigma^*$.

    • If $a=0$, then $a<u$ would lead to $1=|0|_0\le |0|_1=0$. So we have $0=a=u$ the derivation $O\to u$ works.

    • If $a=1$, then we take $w_1$ to be the shortest prefix of $v$ so that $H(w_1)$ and we take $w_2$ so that $u=1w_1w_2$ holds. Since $H(u)$ and $H(w_1)$, we also have $H'(u)$ and $H'(w_1)$. This gives us $H'(w_2)$ and so $|w_2|_0>|w_2|_1$. Take $p<w_2$. Then $1w_1p<u$ so that $|w_1|_1+1+|p|_0=|w_1|_0+|p|_0=|1w_1p|_0\le |1w_1p|_1=1+|w_1|_1+|p|_1$ and we indeed have $|p|_0\le |p|_1$.


Claim 2: Define $\overline{H}(u)$:$|u|_1 > |u|_0$ and for any strict prefix $v<u$, $|u|_1 \le |u|_0$. Then for any $u\in\Sigma^*$,$u\in \mathcal L(I) \iff \overline{H}(u)$. Note that $\overline{H}(u)$ implies $\overline{H}'(u)$:"$|u|_1=|u|_0+1$" and that the last letter of $u$ is $1$.

Proof 2: Similar to proof 1.


Claim 3: $u\in \mathcal L(T)\iff$ for any prefix $v\le u$, $|v|_1 \ge |v|_0$.

Proof 3:

  • "$\Rightarrow$": Follows from claim 1 by induction on the size of the derivation.

  • "$\Leftarrow$": Take $u\in\Sigma^*$ so that for any prefix $v\le u$, $|v|_1 \ge |v|_0$. First note that the first letter of $u$ must be $1$ (if $u$ is not $\varepsilon$). We will prove it by induction on $|u|$.

    • If $u=\varepsilon$, we have $T\to u$.

    • If it exists, take $v$ to be the smallest prefix of $u$ so that $|v|_0=|v|_1$. Then $v=1v'$. Since we took the smallest prefix, we have $H(v')$ and we therefore have $O\to^*v'$ by claim 1. Write $u=vw$ for some $w$. Then by the induction hypothesis, $T\to^* w$ and then $T\to^*1OT\to^*1v'w=u$.

    • If it doesn't exist, write $u=1v$. The fact that the prefix doesn't exist implies that $v$ also verifies the property. By the induction hypothesis, we therefore have $T\to^*v$. And we conclude that $T\to 1T\to^*1v=u$.


Claim 4: $u\in\mathcal L(E) \iff |u|_0=|u|_1$

Proof 4: Left to the reader. One implication follows directly from claim 1 and 2 and the other implication is a case analysis on the first letter.


Claim 5: $u\in \mathcal L(S)\iff |u|_0\le |u|_1$

Proof 5: Left to the reader. One implication follows directly from claims 3 and 4 and the other one has two cases: $|u|_0=|u|_1$ or not, and if not $u$ is factored into $u_11u_2$ where $u_1$ is the greatest prefix so that $|u_1|_0=|u_1|_1$.


Bonus claim: The grammar is non-ambiguous.

Bonus proof: Left to the reader. The idea is that the languages generated by $E$ and $E1T$ will be disjoint so you only have to check that each part is non-ambiguous separately. The part of the grammar used by $E$ is $LL(1)$ so it's non-ambiguous. Then for a word $u$, suppose you can write it as $e_11t_1=u=e_21t_2$ with $E\to^*e_i$ and $T\to^*t_i$. $e_i$ is the longest prefix $v<u=e_i1t_i$ so that $|v|_0=|v|_1$ because $|e_i|_0=|e_i|_1$ and for each prefix $w<t_i$, $|w|_0\le|w|1$. This implies that $e_1=e_2$ and therefore that $t_1=t_2$. By a previous argument, there is only one derivation tree for $e_1$ so all that remains to be checked is that there is only one for $t_1$, or in other words that the part of the grammar used by $T$ is non-ambiguous. It is because you can only take $T\to1OT$ if you're going to come back to the level you are at and $T\to1T$ if you're not.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is wrong, it can't generate strings like 001111100 $\endgroup$ – rsanchez Sep 18 '16 at 1:41
  • $\begingroup$ @rsanchez: Right. Fixed. $\endgroup$ – xavierm02 Sep 18 '16 at 11:56
1
$\begingroup$

$S\mapsto AaA$

$A\mapsto \epsilon |1A|A1|1A0|0A1|AA $ is sufficient no need of $A\mapsto 01A$

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.