Chapter 10 Regulated ET0L Grammars

ET0L grammars can be seen as generalized parallel versions of context-free grammars. More precisely, there exist three main conceptual differences between them and context-free grammars. First, instead of a single set of rules, they have finitely many sets of rules. Second, the left-hand side of a rule may be formed by any grammatical symbol, including a terminal. Third, all symbols of a string are simultaneously rewritten during a single derivation step. The present chapter studies ET0L grammars regulated in a context-conditional way. Specifically, by analogy with sequential context-conditional grammars, this chapter discusses context-conditional ET0L grammars that capture this dependency so each of their rules may be associated with finitely many strings representing permitting conditions and, in addition, finitely many strings representing forbidding conditions. A rule like this can rewrite a symbol if all its permitting conditions occur in the rewritten current sentential form and, simultaneously, all its forbidding conditions do not. Otherwise, these grammars work just like ordinary ET0L grammars. The chapter consists of four sections. Section 10.1 defines the basic version of context-conditional ET0L grammars. The other sections investigate three variants of the basic version—forbidding ET0L grammars (Sect. 10.2), simple semi-conditional ET0L grammars (Sect. 10.3), and left random context ET0L grammars (Sect. 10.4). All these sections concentrate their attention on establishing the generative power of the ET0L grammars under investigation.

[1]  Gheorghe Paun,et al.  Regulated Rewriting in Formal Language Theory , 1989 .

[2]  Erzsébet Csuhaj-Varjú,et al.  Some New Modes of Competence-Based Derivations in CD Grammar Systems , 2008, Developments in Language Theory.

[3]  Grzegorz Rozenberg,et al.  The mathematical theory of L systems , 1980 .

[4]  Petr Sosík The Power of Catalysts and Priorities in Membrane Systems , 2003, Grammars.

[5]  Rudolf Freund,et al.  Hybrid modes in cooperating distributed grammar systems: internal versus external hybridization , 2001, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz,et al.  L-systems: from the Theory to Visual Models of Plants , 2001 .

[7]  Arto Salomaa,et al.  Formal languages , 1973, Computer science classics.

[8]  S. H. von Solms Some notes on ETOL-languages , 1975 .

[9]  Erzsébet Csuhaj-Varjú,et al.  Conditional Tabled Eco-Grammar Systems , 1995, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Jürgen Dassow,et al.  On Cooperating Distributed Grammar Systems with Competence Based Start and Stop Conditions , 2007, Fundam. Informaticae.

[11]  Erzsébet Csuhaj-Varjú,et al.  On Competence in CD Grammar Systems , 2004, Developments in Language Theory.

[12]  Erzsébet Csuhaj-Varjú,et al.  Conditional Tabled Eco-Grammar Systems versus (E)TOL Systems , 1996 .

[13]  Erzsébet Csuhaj-Varjú,et al.  On Competence in CD Grammar Systems with Parallel Rewriting , 2007, Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci..

[14]  Markus Holzer,et al.  Random Context in Regulated Rewriting VersusCooperating Distributed Grammar Systems , 2008, LATA.

[15]  Grzegorz Rozenberg,et al.  Priorities on context conditions in rewriting systems , 1978, Inf. Sci..

[16]  Grzegorz Rozenberg,et al.  The Book of L , 1986, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[17]  Markus Holzer,et al.  Grammar Systems with Negated Conditions in their Cooperation Protocols , 2000, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[18]  Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz,et al.  The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants , 1990, The Virtual Laboratory.