0
$\begingroup$

In a lot of logic textbooks, we are given a set of variables $Prop$, and a set of binary connectives, and we build a formal language, using infix notation, from these and also parentheses (, ). However, these books also use nested layers of parenthesis, as abbreviations. So, for example, $[x+(y+z)]$ is an abbreviation of a well-formed formula. I want to make this abbreviation formal. To simplify, and make precise my question, suppose our alphabet is $\{x, +, (,), [,]\}$. I want to formally define a language, by saying that we use $($ and $)$ as innermost parentheses, then $[$ and $]$ as the next layer, then cycle back to $($ and $)$, cycling back and forth, as the depth of the formula increases. Of course, a generalization of my question is using $n$ pairs of parentheses $(_1, )_1, ..., (_n, )_n$, cycling from $1<2<...<n<1$. I would be very happy if someone answered my generalized question.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, what's the purpose of cycling between different sets of parentheses? Why don't they just use a single set $($ and $)$? $\endgroup$ – gowrath 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ @gowrath For readability, presumably. It's easier to mentally pair brackets if they're different. $\endgroup$ – Arthur 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ @Arthur Sure, but then what is the point of embedding that in the formal language? It makes proofs about the formal system much more difficult. $\endgroup$ – gowrath 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ @gowrath This is just an exercise in making abbreviations formal. I am someone who likes to formalize things. It is just an intellectual exercise. $\endgroup$ – user107952 2 days ago
1
$\begingroup$

For any finite number of "types" of parentheses, you can define a context free grammar to formalize the well-formed formulas. For the case of two types of parentheses for example, you would have the following, where $R$ is the root node:

$$ \begin{align*} R &\to S \ \mid \ T \\ S &\to x \ \mid \ \left ( \ T + T \ \right ) \\ T &\to x \ \mid \ \left [ \ S + S \ \right ] \\ \end{align*} $$

In the general case of $n$ types of parentheses $()_0, \ldots, ()_{n-1}$, you would have the following rules for each $i = 0, \ldots, n-1$.

$$ \begin{align*} R &\to S_0 \ \mid \cdots \ \mid \ S_{n-1} \\ S_i &\to x \ \mid \ \left (_i \ S_{(i+1) \ \text{mod} \ n} + S_{(i+1) \ \text{mod} \ n} \ \right )_i \\ \end{align*} $$

This allows for the expressions to start with any arbitrary symbol, but cycles correctly. I think you can't write a context-free grammar if you always want to start with $()_0$ at the lowest level because it involves predetermining a fixed depth for a formula in some form, but I'm not so sure about this.

$\endgroup$

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.