Let , , and
Then . Adding also produces ; for example is generated but lies in neither nor . Thus the proposed equality can fail because the new erasing rule may be used on a noninitial occurrence of .
After the first rule , every sentential form is obtained from a sentential form of by uniformly renaming as . Each rule of has exactly the corresponding renamed rule in , and conversely. Terminal words contain neither symbol, so this bijection of derivations proves
In the unstarred occurs only as the initial symbol and has precisely the alternatives
The first produces only . After the second, the renamed-derivation argument from part (b) produces exactly . Therefore

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.