|Why could the DFA constructed in most compiler books recognize all t Volition2k@yahoo.com (2003-09-30)|
|Re: Why could the DFA constructed in most compiler books recognize all email@example.com (Venkatesha Murthy) (2003-10-04)|
|Re: Why could the DFA constructed in most compiler books recognize all Volition2k@yahoo.com (2003-10-08)|
|Re: Why could the DFA constructed in most compiler books recognize all Volition2k@yahoo.com (2003-10-12)|
|From:||Volition2k@yahoo.com (Tim Carmack)|
|Date:||8 Oct 2003 22:26:55 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||08 Oct 2003 22:26:54 EDT|
Unfortunately I cannot find that proof in the second edition of that book.
Maybe it is in the first edition,sigh.
Venkatesha Murthy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
> If I remember right, this is a result due to Knuth. I don't have the
> reference handy, but Hopcroft and Ullman's book "Introduction to
> Automata Theory, Formal Languages and Computation" should have it.
> Tim Carmack wrote:
> > I have read many textbooks on compiling theory and all of them
> > teach me how to construct a DFA to recognize all viable prefixes
> > of a CFL but without strict proof concerning why all these prefixes
> > constitute a regualr language and the DFA constructed could recognize
> > this regular language. ...
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.