Alphabeta Math
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

✓ 3 results · all verified · 1 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs. The 2 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Context-Free Pumping, Ogden's Lemma, and Parsing: Examples and Counterexamples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples show the CFL pumping lemma failing on anbncn, run the emptiness and finiteness tests on small grammars, and isolate a non-context-free language that still satisfies the weaker Bar-Hillel pumping condition.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-12Open item page →

Using the CFL pumping lemma to rule out {anbncn:n≥0}

Example

Consider the language L={anbncn:n≥0}.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The language L={anbncn:n≥0}.

[L1]

By The pumping lemma for context-free languages, every context-free language has a pumping length p with the usual decomposition property.

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1given

Assume for contradiction that L is context-free, and let p be the pumping length from [L1]. Apply the lemma to the word apbpcp to obtain a decomposition uvwxy with ∣vx∣≥1 and ∣vwx∣≤p.

2.1L1step 1.1

Because ∣vwx∣≤p, the substring vwx lies inside one block or crosses only one of the two block boundaries. Pumping v and x therefore changes at most two of the three symbol counts, so for i=0 or i=2 the pumped word uviwxiy cannot still have equal numbers of a's, b's, and c's. This contradicts [L1].

3.1step 2.1∎

Therefore L is not context-free.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-12Open item page →

Running the emptiness and finiteness tests on small grammars

Example

Use the three grammars

G∅:S→AB, A→a, B→bB, G∞:S→A, A→aAb∣ab, Gfin:S→aA∣b, A→c∣d.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The three displayed grammars.

[L1]

By CFG emptiness and finiteness are decidable, the emptiness and finiteness questions for CFG's are decidable by generating-variable and dependency-graph tests.

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1given

In G∅, the variable B never derives a terminal word, so the start symbol S is not generating. The emptiness test from [L1] therefore reports L(G∅)=∅.

1.2L1given

In Gfin, the dependency graph is acyclic and the grammar generates exactly the three words ac, ad, and b. So the finiteness test from [L1] reports "finite" on this grammar.

2.1L1step 1.1

In G∞, the variable A lies on a productive cycle through the rule A→aAb, so the dependency-graph test from [L1] reports infinitude. Indeed L(G∞)={anbn:n≥1} is infinite.

3.1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1∎

These three tiny inputs realize the empty, infinite, and finite outcomes of the theorem.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-12Open item page →

A non-context-free language can still satisfy the Bar-Hillel pumping condition

Statement refuted

The false statement claims that the ordinary CFL pumping condition characterizes the context-free languages. Put K:={anbncn:n≥0},L:=sK∪{srq:r≠1, q∈{a,b,c}∗}, where s is a new symbol. The language L is a counterexample.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The language L displayed above.

[L1]

By FALSE: the context-free pumping lemma characterizes the context-free languages, the refuted claim is that satisfying the ordinary pumping condition is equivalent to being context-free.

[L2]

The proof of Context-free languages are not closed under intersection establishes that K is not context free.

[L3]

PDA's recognize exactly the context-free languages (PDAs recognize exactly the context-free languages), and context-free languages are closed under homomorphic image (Context-free languages are closed under union, concatenation, Kleene star, and homomorphism).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1givencases

Take pumping length p:=3 and write a word of L as srq. If r=0, pump the first letter of q; if r=1, pump the initial s; if r≥2 and q is nonempty, pump its first letter. Taking w=x=ε gives ∣vwx∣≤3, and every pump remains in L.

1.2L2L3assume-contraconstructdischarge-contradiction

Suppose L were context free and let R:={saibjck:i,j,k≥0}. A product of a PDA for L from [L3] with a DFA for the regular language R is a PDA for L∩R=sK. The homomorphism deleting s would then make K context free by [L3], contradicting [L2].

2.1step 1.1cases

If the word is sr with r≥3, pump s3 when r=3 and pump s2 when r≥4. Pumping never leaves exactly one initial s, so every pumped word again lies in L. Thus L satisfies the ordinary CFL pumping condition.

3.1L1step 2.1step 1.2∎

Hence L satisfies ordinary pumping but is not context free, so it refutes the claim in [L1].

Sources