Re: Question re the (non-)equivalence of Z -> z and Z -> z e (e the empty string)

dhalitsky@cumulativeinquiry.com (David Halitsky)
23 Aug 2004 12:06:01 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: Question re the (non-)equivalence of Z -> z and Z -> z e (e the em k301x@yahoo.com (dtf) (2004-08-10)
Re: Question re the (non-)equivalence of Z -> z and Z -> z e (e the em dhalitsky@cumulativeinquiry.com (2004-08-11)
Re: Question re the (non-)equivalence of Z -> z and Z -> z e (e the em cppljevans@cox-internet.com (Larry Evans) (2004-08-11)
Re: Question re the (non-)equivalence of Z -> z and Z -> z e (e the em kwheinri@bsr2.uwaterloo.ca (Kenn Heinrich) (2004-08-13)
Re: Question re the (non-)equivalence of Z -> z and Z -> z e (e the em dhalitsky@cumulativeinquiry.com (2004-08-13)
Re: Question re the (non-)equivalence of Z -> z and Z -> z e (e the em parsersinc@earthlink.net (SLK Parsers) (2004-08-15)
Re: Question re the (non-)equivalence of Z -> z and Z -> z e (e the em dhalitsky@cumulativeinquiry.com (2004-08-23)
Re: Question re the (non-)equivalence of Z -> z and Z -> z e (e the em parsersinc@earthlink.net (SLK Parsers) (2004-09-03)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: dhalitsky@cumulativeinquiry.com (David Halitsky)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 23 Aug 2004 12:06:01 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com
References: 04-08-046 04-08-102
Keywords: theory, summary
Posted-Date: 23 Aug 2004 12:06:01 EDT

Thanks very much for taking the time to resuscitate
the example and the argument in your post to this
thread !


Does your use of the example mean that you think it
is OK (in language theoretic examples anyway) to
think of epsilon (the emptry string symbol) as being
an element of Vt which can appear to the right of
the arrow in productions ?


Reason I'm asking is cause Kenn (in a prior post
to this thread) says that it's not really correct
to look at epsilon in this way.


Any additional light you could shed would be very
much appreciated.


Best regards
Dave


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.