Just before graduation, I will send this to my professor with the caption: "This is how you give an online lecture, damn it!" Thanks a lot for this. I subscribed immediately.
I’m doing this in college, and we were taught a different way of handling unit rules; if A > B, then for every rule like B > Xyz, you add A > Xyz, basically skipping over the A > B step. Is this what you were referring to?
This does the same thing, but is more general. My method is your method but applied repeatedly. Although mine may generate more rules though. I'd have to think about it tho.
@@EasyTheoryYeah, I think your version would generate a lot of rules, especially if A appears in a lot of places, although my version duplicates all of B’s rules, so which makes less depends on the comparison of these. The big benefit I see in mine is that it’s simpler to explain how to do (most of the detail being in doing it repeatedly until there are no more unit rules). I’ve also seen some other parts done differently; I’ve seen the S -> e fix done by substituting individual A -> e rules instead of precalculating which rules are nullable, and the substitution in the chain-breaking done right to left (so A -> BCD would become A -> BX X -> CD instead of A -> XD X -> BC), though that isn’t all that different.
![[Live] : ONE 168 วันนี้!! "โจนาธาน vs ซุปเปอร์เล็ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jIN65KgJsI/mqdefault.jpg)
Just before graduation, I will send this to my professor with the caption:
"This is how you give an online lecture, damn it!"
Thanks a lot for this. I subscribed immediately.
Lmao!
I am here thinking the same thing
You explain computation theory with a great passion which makes me more interested.
The only video that gives the inuition how to perform this rather than just throwing a set of steps . Thanks a lott!
Thank you, this is the best explanation I've seen on the internet yet. Much appreciated!
that's gonna save many students out there, thanks a lot for the effort
Thanks for this man! This part of my class was a total enigma before I watched this haha
You're welcome!
Seriously, thanks.
Thank you so much, amazing explanation
Thanks for the video!
I’m doing this in college, and we were taught a different way of handling unit rules; if A > B, then for every rule like B > Xyz, you add A > Xyz, basically skipping over the A > B step. Is this what you were referring to?
This does the same thing, but is more general. My method is your method but applied repeatedly. Although mine may generate more rules though. I'd have to think about it tho.
@@EasyTheoryYeah, I think your version would generate a lot of rules, especially if A appears in a lot of places, although my version duplicates all of B’s rules, so which makes less depends on the comparison of these. The big benefit I see in mine is that it’s simpler to explain how to do (most of the detail being in doing it repeatedly until there are no more unit rules).
I’ve also seen some other parts done differently; I’ve seen the S -> e fix done by substituting individual A -> e rules instead of precalculating which rules are nullable, and the substitution in the chain-breaking done right to left (so A -> BCD would become A -> BX X -> CD instead of A -> XD X -> BC), though that isn’t all that different.
sir didn't understand how A->xy, doest change the grammar, at 18:40, like we think if b goes to empty.
Thanks!
wow cool!
Martinez Shirley Young John Jones John
I'm sure you could have done this video last 10 minutes