The issue of decidability in relation to shape grammars is considered here. Decidability concerns, first, the identification of different types of grammars and, second, the answerability or solvability of questions about these types of grammars. In this paper, the first of these two topics is examined. Six different types of shape grammars are defined by considering different kinds of restrictions on rule format and rule ordering. The effects that these different restrictions have on the generative power, practicality, pedagogical value, and other characteristics of a shape grammar are discussed. In a subsequent paper, “Shape grammars: five questions” (Knight, 1998), the answerabilities of various questions about the types of shape grammars outlined here are explored. The decidability issues addressed in this paper and the subsequent one are key to the practical use of shape grammars in design projects where specific goals and constraints need to be satisfied.
[1]
T Weissman Knight,et al.
The Forty-One Steps
,
1981
.
[2]
T. Knight.
Transformations of De Stijl Art: The Paintings of Georges Vantongerloo and Fritz Glarner
,
1989
.
[3]
Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.
Formal languages and their relation to automata
,
1969,
Addison-Wesley series in computer science and information processing.
[4]
G. Stiny.
Introduction to Shape and Shape Grammars
,
1980
.
[5]
T Weissman Knight,et al.
Languages of Designs: From Known to New
,
1981
.
[6]
George Stiny,et al.
Spatial Relations and Grammars
,
1982
.
[7]
T W Knight,et al.
Shape Grammars and Color Grammars in Design
,
1994
.
[8]
William J. Mitchell,et al.
The Palladian Grammar
,
1978
.
[9]
T. Knight.
Constructive Symmetry
,
1995
.