# Topics from 2001

I've added a table to Chomsky hierarchy, and moved some of the information from the bullets to the table. I thought it would be easier to see the relationships at a glance if they were in a table. Feel free to resurrect the old bullets (below) if you think that's more readable. -LC [28 August 2001]

## The old description

I've reinserted the old description because I feel it is more understandable and gives more explanation for people who don't know the hierarchy already. -- JanHidders [28 August 2001]

• well then I'd hate to see the old description because the current one is incomprehensible. --Ignignot 03:26, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

## Definitions and Chomsky-n term

I've fixed the definitions (nonempty γ, Type-1 includes S->&epsilon). I also removed the redundant A->a, for simplicity, and for consistency with some theory books.

I'm curious about the names "Chomsky-n" and "(CHn)". I've always heard people talk of "Type-n" grammars and languages, but not "Chomsky-n" languages. None of my books have it either. A web search turns up lots of hits on "Type-0 grammar" but none on "Chomsky-0". The same is true for the papers archived at [1]. Is this term in widespread use? Or did a textbook coin it for internal use? -LC [28 August 2001]

### Listing 3 rule types

I agree with the repair of the Type-1 grammer definition but then you should add a remark at CH1 that the rule S -> ε is also allowed. That way it is indeed the most common form. (I just did some checking in the library.) But for regular grammars the most common form is where all three types of rules are allowed. An important exception is the book by Hopcroft and Ullman Introduction to Automata and Language Theory where they only allow A -> aB and A -> a with the remark that S -> ε is also allowed. Actually I like their approach the best:

1. type-0 : no restrictions
2. type-1 : αAβ -> αγβ (with γ <> ε) and maybe S -> ε
3. type-2 : A -> γ (with γ <> ε) and maybe S -> ε
4. type-3 : A -> a or A -> aB and maybe S -> ε

Two arguments: (1) the book is a classic, (2) it makes it immediately clear that every higher type grammar is more restrictive than the lower type grammars. The discussion about the alternative definitions and why they are equivalent can always be done in the articles on the specific type of grammer. Deal? :-)

As far as the "Chomsky-n" names are concerned, I didn't introduce those and I also haven't seen them anywhere before. The hierarchy is usually presented as a hierarchy of grammars and not of languages, so I feel we should do the same. -- JanHidders [28 August 2001]

I agree. These definitions make it clearer that each is a superset of the next. That's nice. I'll go ahead and change the table to use those definitions. The "maybe S->ε" part can go in a sentence after the table, since it also needs to explain that if you use that form, you can't have S on the right side for Type-1.

I changed it from a hierarchy of languages to a hierarchy of grammars, and got rid of the "Chomsky-n" and "CHn" names before, but it slipped back in when the bullets were re-expanded. I'll make that change again. -LC [1-Sept-2001]

The definition of regular languages that was in the table (namely, using A --> a and not A --> \epsilon) was technically wrong, since it will not allow the generation of any regular language that contains the empty word. I've changed this to allow the A --> \epsilon production rule. The discussion above about different ways to present regular languages might be interesting to push in the article, but for now, the diagram should not be incorrect. -dam

# Topics from 2003

## Example third production

Shouldn't the third production in the example grammar be changed as follows:

OLD:

BA -> AB

NEW:

AB -> AABB

I don't see where BA can ever be generated when starting with S. This change seems like it would make it so that the grammar could indeed produce { anbn | n ∈ Integers & n >= 0 } as described. Right now it looks like it can only produces { ε, ab } (never being able to use several of the productions). -[67.30.5.76, 25 October 2003]

It is correct. BA can be generated using the first production twice. For example
S -> ABS -> ABABS -> AABBS -> AABb -> AAbb -> Aabb -> aabb.
However, it would be nicer to give an example of a language that is not context-free. --Zero 12:25, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Alternatively, the same language could be codified with a context-free grammar of only two productions and one nonterminal: S -> aSb; S -> ε.

I'm not an expert on formal grammars, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but with the example grammar given for anbn:

   S -> ABS
S -> ε (with ε the empty string)
BA -> AB
BS -> b
Bb -> bb
Ab -> ab
Aa -> aa



it seems you can reach a state where no more productions are possible yet you still have non-terminals in the string:

 S
ABS (S -> ABS)
AB  (S -> ε)


There's no production rule for AB, nor A alone or B alone. Is there an error?

Also I agree that the simple context-free grammar S -> aSb; S -> ε may be a better example. What do people think?

Chopchopwhitey 20:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is not an error to be able to reach a point where no productions apply. The definition of the language generated by the grammar is the set of strings of all terminals that can be produced. It doesn't matter what other strings can be produced. --Zero 02:43, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me. --Chopchopwhitey 08:28, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

# Topics from 2004

## Splitting subset grammars

The linked page pushdown automaton makes a distinction between the deterministic and non-deterministic varieties of PAs and the languages that can be generated by each. Would it be correct to say this causes a splitting of Type-2 grammars into:
Type-2a - recognizable by NPA
Type-2b - recognizable by DPA  ?

marsh @{1} mysteray \.{1} com

Not exactly. It would be more correct to say that you have Type-2 grammars (recognizable by NPAs) and Type-2.5 grammars (recognizable by DPAs) where the first describes a proper superset of the second, and the second describes a proper superset of the languages described by Type-3 grammars. -- Jan Hidders 22:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The names "type n grammar" and "type n language" for n in 0..3 are used by Chomsky in his original article (On Certain Formal Properties of Grammars, Information and Control 1959), so I think it is best to use them here as well. The purpose of the article is to prove that the four types of languages are separated by proper inclusions, so I think it is best to keep discussion of other types of grammars and languages introduced later (deterministic context-free languages, LR(k) and LL(k) languages, simple context-free languages, bracketed languages) out of this entry. -- rp 9 mar 2004

Then where should other formal languages be discussed, for example, indexed grammars/languages (Type 1.5) (Aho, 1968), mildly context-sensitive grammars/languages (1.75) (Joshi et al, 1975), and deterministic PDAs (2.5), among others. They certainly deserve treatment somewhere in a hierarchy of formal languages, even if Chomsky didn't discuss them in his 1959 and 1963 papers. --jonsafari 23:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In his original article, Chomsky does not consider empty productions or languages with empty strings, but the fact that empty string generation can always be "pushed out" to a single production is so fundamental that perhaps it must be discussed here rather than in a separate node. -- rp 9 mar 2004

# Topics from 2005

## Finitely many productions.

I've added to the given definition of a grammar the stipulation that the set of productions must be finite. This restriction needs to be placed either on all grammars, or on each of the classes used to define the Chomsky hierarchy for the article to be correct. I've chosen the former since this is consistent with the definition in formal grammar. Of course one can argue that there's nothing in principle wrong with the idea of an "infinite grammar" and that this idea is useful in certain contexts, but I think that debate is better had in the context of that article! Best wishes, Cambyses 10:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

## Ironic name

Does anyone else find the title of this page ironic? Chomsky hierarchy--I know it isn't a hierarchy over people, but still, it is kinda funny. -[63.205.15.166, 11 September 2005]

• What is funny about a categorization scheme for grammars of different languages? Perhaps you are referring to Chomsky's advocation of anarchosyndicalism which is inherently opposite a hierarchy. —optikos 02:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• I also found it funny. "What did you say? The Chomsky hierarchy? I thought he was supposed to be an anarchist..." 82.32.31.166 (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

# Topics from 2006

## Schützenberger

The article says nothing about Marcel Schützenberger. I added a line, but it seems there should be more info (some references?) on this. Mhym 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Given how important the hierarchy is to computer science, especially in the development of programming languages shouldn't there be a categorization link to either Category: Computer Science of Category: Programming Languages?

## Why does this matter?

I came across this somewhat accidentally, and it left me wondering: why does this matter? Not that I doubt that it does, of course. It's just that the article doesn't say much about why this division of grammars is interesting or important. If someone knows, it would be great if they could add it. William Pietri 06:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

## Page name change

Back in March, an editor moved this page from Chomsky hierarchy to Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy.

The name "Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy" has very little currency, as Google search will immediately verify. Hits for "Chomsky hierarchy" outnumber "Chomsky-Schützenberger hierarchy" by 68,000 to 15.

Regardless of the justness or aptness for the name "Chomsky hierarchy", that is what the subject of the article is called, and that is what the article should be named.

There are many similar cases; for example the Zorn's lemma article is under "Zorn's lemma", not "Kuratowski's lemma" or "Kuratowski-Zorn lemma" or "Zorn-Kuratowski lemma", because, in English, the lemma in question is universally known as "Zorn's lemma", despite the fact that Zorn enunciated a different (albiet related) maximal principle, and that Zorn's work was indisputably anticipated by Kuratowski.

Accordingly, I am moving this article back to Chomsky hierarchy. If Schützenberger made significant contributions to it, the article should say so in detail. But it should not be titled "Chomsky-Schützenberger hierarchy" when hardly anyone calls it that. -- Dominus 13:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: All of the cited references are for Chomsky, none for Schützenberger. The "external link" refers to "Chomsky hierarchy", no mention of Schützenberger.

-- Dominus 13:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this analysis and this corrective action. —optikos 02:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

## Containment hierarchy

Mention in made in the Chomsky hierarchy entry of a "containment hierarchy". What is it? How does a containment hierarchy differ from other types of formal hierarchies? What are the other types of formal hierarchies?

If you need an explanation of a term that is linked to another Wikipedia article, then click on that link and read about the concept at the other article. This matter is fully addressed in containment hierarchy. —optikos 02:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

# Topics from 2007

14-Oct-2007: I have inserted 12 subheaders above, retrofitting subheader titles to reflect the subject of each discussion, and adding "-[<date>]" when missing. To emphasize the span of prior years, I have noted "Topics from 2001" or "Topics from 2003" etc. I moved 3 paragraphs according to the year the topic was started. There's not enough to archive the talk, and of course, some people added sub-comments in later years, as dated. -Wikid77 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

## Removing technical-tag

24-Oct-2007: I am removing the "{{technical}}" tag from this talk page: it is a waste of time to try rewriting grammar production rules for a "general audience". Encyclopedias, historically, have been separated from science encyclopedias, but Wikipedia does not bias knowledge to prevent linking "physics" to an article about "hummingbirds" and their wings. Also, that tag is an access barrier which prompts computer scientists to feel they cannot use technical terms in WP articles. The technical-tag probably applies to well over 20,000 articles, and the appropriate solution is not to rewrite articles, but to "also-see" link back to general intro articles, not spend hours rewriting computability theory or quantum mechanics for "the masses". I'm afraid the technical-tag is just another vanity-tag that does more for those who use it, then actually helping readers or editors improve articles. The technical-tag, along with many other vanity-tags, should really be eliminated totally from Wikipedia, except as a historical reminder of failed concepts. Anyway, I am commenting out the "{{technical}}" tag here (and please also remove it from other talk-pages). -Wikid77 21:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

## Set Inclusions

The set inclusion context-free\subseteq context-sensitive shown in the figure doesn't follow from the definition, for there is nothing to prevent productions of the type S-->aS, S-->\epsilon which according to the given definitions is a context-free grammar but not a context-sensitive grammar! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.200.196 (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

## Arrow

What does the arrow pointing to the right symbolize? 169.139.19.207 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It symbolizes a production rule. It means that in a word from the formal language, the symbols on the left can be substituted by the symbols on the right, to create a new "expanded" word. This is explained in the linked article Formal_grammar#Introductory_example. Diego (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

# Topics from 2012

## Some thoughts on regular vs. type-3 grammars

I've written down some thoughts on the distinction between regular and type-3 grammars at http://dp.grhack.net/#type_3_vs_regular_grammars. I think there are some problems with the examples presented in this wiki page. Can someone verify?

## Nonterminal

The article says: "a finite set of nonterminal symbols (that do not appear in the left-hand side of any production rule)". I think this is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LCamel (talkcontribs) 04:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

## So, which one is English?

Does this have any relation to, you know, real languages? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a computational linguist, so you might want to take this with a grain of salt, but as far as I'm aware this is still somewhat of an open question. Most languages are approximately context-free, but some have context-sensitive constructs. Others have argued that the nesting-depth of language constructs is limited in practice, making natural languages regular. You could also try the reference desk. —Ruud 18:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
English is none of these. It (like almost every language spoken by humans) is a Natural Language, while the Hierarchy deals with classification of Formal Languages. The articles on those two do a decent job of explaining the difference. 66.31.201.182 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Chomsky considers all natural languages to be built on the structure of a formal language. So for Chomsky there is no difference between formal langauges and natural languages - except that people speaking formal languages sometimes violate the underltying formal structure by producing performance errors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The following text occurring in the article appears to be a contradiction:

"Note that the set of grammars corresponding to recursive languages is not a member of this hierarchy.

Every regular language is context-free, every context-free language, not containing the empty string, is context-sensitive and every context-sensitive language is recursive and every recursive language is recursively enumerable. These are all proper inclusions, meaning that there exist recursively enumerable languages which are not context-sensitive, context-sensitive languages which are not context-free and context-free languages which are not regular." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.3.15 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? Could you point it out more explicitly? --Zahnradzacken (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

## Chomsky (1956) does not contain the specified hierarchy

This article claims (and cites) that the hierarchy referred to here as 'the Chomsky Hierarchy' was outlined in Chomsky (1956), 'Three Models for the Description of Language'. Although Chomsky does discuss finite automata in that paper (where they are just one of the three models in a different hierarchy) he makes no attempt to classify them, and indeed, seems to be writing only about so-called Type 2 (push-down) automata, without ever stating as much. The hierarchy he actually discusses in that paper is the hierarchy of 1.) finite state automata; 2.)Phrase Structure Grammars; and 3.) Transformational Grammars.

The 'correct' reference for the hierarchy of automata that is outlined in this article is Chomsky (1959) 'On Certain Formal Properties of Grammar'. However, I am highly dubious that Chomsky deserves credit for _this_ hierarchy: he doesn't cite anyone, thereby creating the impression that perhaps he invented automata theory, but of course he did not. Automata had been much discussed long before 1959. The basic ideas go back at least to the 1930s, with work of Gödel, Church, Turing, Stephen Kleene and Emil Post. Shannon discusses Type 3 (finite state, no stack) automata and their relation to language in his (1949) 'A Mathematical Theory of Communication'.

Chomsky and Miller published a 1959 paper called 'Finite state languages', which I have not yet read but which may shed more light on this matter.

I am not sufficiently educated to know who first distinguished between automata with [Type 2] and without [Type 3] a stack (the main distinction that relevant in Chomsky's work and the only automata distinction discussed in his 1956 paper) but it was almost certainly not Chomsky.

CWestbury (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

## Feudal languages?

Does the contentions given in this theory have anything to do with the definition: Feudal languages?

See this books by one particular author:

Or is it a completely different subject matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.86.231 (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)