States can sometimes do more than stack symbols in PDA's

Preliminary version
  • John K. Price
  • Detlef Wotschke
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 62)


In pushdown automata, states can sometimes do more than stack symbols. More precisely, reducing the state set by a factor of k may require an increase in the stack alphabet by a factor of k2. These results are based on the observation that the "triple construction" for converting a pushdown automaton into a context-free grammar is optimal.


Finite Automaton Springer Lecture Note Deterministic Finite Automaton Start Symbol Pushdown Automaton 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    M. M. Geller, H. B. Hunt, III, T. G. Szymanski and J. D. Ullman, Economy of Description by Parsers, DPDAs and PDAs, 16th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Ginsburg, The Mathematical Theory of Context-Free Languages, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Ginsburg and N. Lynch, Size complexity in context-free grammar forms, J. ACM 23 (1976), 582–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Ginsburg and E. H. Spanier, Finite-turn pushdown automata, SIAM J. Control 4, 423–434, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Gruska, Descriptional complexity (of languages), a short survey, Proc. Conf. on Math. Foundations of Comp. Sci., Gdansk, September, 1976 (Springer Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci., Vol. 45), 65–80.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    H. B. Hunt, III, and T. G. Szymanski, On the complexity of grammar and related problems, Proc. 7th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, May, 1975, 54–65.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. R. Meyer and M. J. Fischer, Economy of description by automata, grammars, and formal systems, Proc. 12th Symp. on Switching and Automata Theory, October, 1971, 188–191.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    W. Ogden, A Helpful Result for Proving Inherent Ambiguity, Mathematical Systems Theory 2:3 (1968), 191–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Pirická, Complexity and normal forms of context-free languages, Proc. Conf. on Math. Foundations of Comp. Sci., June, 1974 (Springer Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci., Vol. 28), 292–297.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Pirická-Kelemenová, Greibach normal form complexity, Proc. Conf. on Math. Foundations of Comp. Sci., September, 1975 (Springer Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci., Vol. 32), 344–350.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    L. G. Valiant, A note on the succinctness of descriptions of deterministic languages, Inf. and Contr. 32 (1976), 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • John K. Price
    • 1
  • Detlef Wotschke
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park

Personalised recommendations