Category Archives: Formal Grammars

Grammar 1 Grammar 1 is something of a misnomer.  It is nowhere near exemplifying any kind of a standard form and it’s put forth only as a starting point for the initiation of more respectable grammars.  Such as it is, … Continue reading →

A certain degree of flexibility in the use of covering relations is typically allowed in practice.  Where there is little danger of confusion we may allow symbols to stand equivocally either for individual strings or for their types. There is … Continue reading →

The following definitions round out the concepts we need to begin applying formal grammar theory to the efficient description of formal languages, in particular, the family of cactus languages. It is convenient to refer to the full set of symbols … Continue reading →

A notation of the form was introduced last time to indicate a category of grammatical relationships whose sense is suggested by any of the following readings. For the moment it’s enough to call a covering relation, reading it as In … Continue reading →

A notation of the form is introduced to indicate a category of grammatical relationships whose sense is suggested by any of the following readings. The form plays a number of roles in the description of formal languages by means of … Continue reading →

Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you conceive the objects of your conception to have.  Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object. Charles S. Peirce • Issues of Pragmaticism … Continue reading →

We are engaged in teasing out the consequences of the following description of our subject. The painted cactus language with paints in the set is the formal language defined as follows. Only one thing remains to cast that description of … Continue reading →

Given the idea of a Parce on as a member of the cactus language a number of frequently occurring sublanguages and commonly invoked operations on their expressions can now be given succinct definition. A bare Parce, a bit loosely referred … Continue reading →

Last time we arrived at the following definition of our subject matter. The painted cactus language with paints in the set is the formal language defined as follows. A sentence of is known as a painted and rooted cactus expression … Continue reading →

Re: Cactus Language • Preliminaries 9 Re: Cactus Language • Discussion 1 Re: Alex Shkotin AS: Interesting language.  It’s unusual to treat “ ” as a sentence.  Usually it is just a separator for other lexemes. Are the following correct? One … Continue reading →