Therefore we need not look before W [ 4 ] to find a terminal string for W [ 5 ].
2.
One can read off the corresponding terminal string by performing an ordered tree traversal and recording the terminal symbols in the order they are encountered.
3.
Given that no rule of this grammar ever rewrites " X ", such a derivation is destined to never produce a terminal string.
4.
Productions over such a grammar are sequences of rules in " P " that, when applied in order of the sequence, lead to a terminal string.
5.
One typical way of defining head grammars is to replace the terminal strings of CFGs with indexed terminal strings, where the index denotes the " head " word of the string.
6.
One typical way of defining head grammars is to replace the terminal strings of CFGs with indexed terminal strings, where the index denotes the " head " word of the string.
7.
For convenience of notation, such a rule could be written as just the terminal string, with the head terminal denoted by some sort of mark, as in A \ to \ widehat { a } bc.
8.
One can sum up the pattern here simply as " concatenate some number of terminal strings " m ", with the head of string " n " designated as the head of the resulting string ".
9.
Whereas LMGs produce a terminal string from a start predicate, RCGs aim to reduce a start predicate ( which predicates of a terminal string ) to the empty string, which constitutes a proof of the terminal strings membership in the language.
10.
Whereas LMGs produce a terminal string from a start predicate, RCGs aim to reduce a start predicate ( which predicates of a terminal string ) to the empty string, which constitutes a proof of the terminal strings membership in the language.
मोबाइल