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.
CFG ambiguity is undecidable
Statement
The CFG ambiguity problem is undecidable.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A PCP instance
A grammar is ambiguous exactly when some word in its language has two distinct leftmost derivations, by Ambiguous grammars, unambiguous grammars, and inherently ambiguous languages.
A PCP match is a nonempty index sequence with equal top and bottom concatenations, by The Post correspondence problem.
PCP is undecidable, by The Post correspondence problem is undecidable.
If and is decidable, then is decidable, by Computable many-one reductions transfer decidability and recognizability backward.
Proof
Choose fresh terminal symbols disjoint from the PCP alphabet, and build one grammar with start symbol and two branches: A leftmost derivation from yields exactly the words , and a derivation from yields the analogous words with the . The fresh reversed suffix uniquely determines the entire index sequence, so each branch is unambiguous.
If is a PCP match, then the word has one leftmost derivation beginning with and another beginning with . Hence the grammar is ambiguous by [L1].
Conversely, if the grammar is ambiguous, [L1] gives a word with two distinct leftmost derivations. Step 1.1 proves that neither the branch nor the branch has two derivations of one word, so one derivation begins with and the other with . The common terminal word has the form Freshness and unique parsing of the reversed suffix force and for every , so is a PCP match.
Steps 2.1 and 2.2 show that the constructed grammar is ambiguous if and only if the original PCP instance has a match. If CFG ambiguity were decidable, then [L4] and this equivalence would make PCP decidable, contradicting [L3].
Therefore CFG ambiguity is undecidable.
Depends on
- The CFG equivalence and ambiguity problems
- Ambiguous grammars, unambiguous grammars, and inherently ambiguous languages
- The Post correspondence problem
- Computable many-one reductions between languages
- The Post correspondence problem is undecidable
- Computable many-one reductions transfer decidability and recognizability backward
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
12 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Doug Baldwin, Ambiguity of CFGs is Undecidable (standard reference, not scraped)
- John Watrous, Introduction to the Theory of Computing (standard reference, not scraped)