this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
33 points (100.0% liked)

Programming

17416 readers
67 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
snowe@programming.dev
Ategon@programming.dev
MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz
33
Why focus on formal language in theory of computation? Most programs do more than merely accept or reject an input (lemy.lol)
submitted 7 months ago by matcha_addict@lemy.lol to c/programming@programming.dev
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

While reading Sipser's book on theory of computation, it relies heavily on the concept of formal language, and machines that merely accept or reject an input.

But most useful programs we deal with do more than merely verify an input. They compute something. We may compute a solution for an equation instead of merely verify it. We may sum a list of numbers, or calculate some function on it.

Maybe "most" is an exaggeration since I can't prove it. But still, it begs the question. Why not deal with machines than do more than merely verify?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Corbin@programming.dev 23 points 7 months ago

It's because most of the hard questions and theorems can be phrased over the Booleans. Lawvere's fixed-point theorem, which has Turing's theorem and Rice's theorem as special cases (see also Yanofsky 2003), applies to Boolean values just as well as to natural numbers.

That said, you're right to feel like there should be more explanation. Far too many parser papers are written with only recognition in mind, and the actual execution of parsing rules can be a serious engineering challenge. It would be nice if parser formalisms were described in terms of AST constructors and not mere verifiers.