Given that review, let's go over the actual questions.

This is sometimes true.

That's a good point, Peter, and the answer is yes.

That's an excellent question.

Well, because, sentences are more interesting.

But that's an example of an application that also uses this sort of linguistic analysis perhaps a little less related to context free grammars but still in the same vein.

In particular, it's a set of strings that can be represented by a finite state machine or a regular expression.

There are some context free languages that are not regular, but there are some languages that are regular and context free.

Is it the case that no regular languages are context free languages and vice versa?

... the misspelled word shown in context...

There are a number of references to these underneath the lecture videos, but it turns out that a lot of these notions of context free grammars or generative grammars or universal grammars actually came out of psychology or linguistics or computational linguistics to help us understand human and natural language.

What we want to determine is how we can connect these two.

You can take any finite state machine and represent it with a context free grammar.

A context free language is also a set of strings but can be represented by context free grammar, and what these 3 questions are asking us in this problem is to determine the relationship between a regular language and a context free language, so let's say this bubble represents the set of regular languages.

It's a set of sets of strings.

Finite State Machines, adding a lexer that follows them automatically,

As it turns out, this diagram is the correct one.

Or perhaps there are some regular languages that are not context free.

You might think, Boy, is there a context expensive grammar out there? What's the opposite of free?

The brain is recording all information and driving all change in temporal context.

These grammars that we've been introducing describe something new context free languages.

This is always true because we have our Pac Man diagram here, and also because you can take any regular language and represent it with a context free grammar.

A context free grammar always produces just a finite number of utterances.

It relates grammars to parsing, which is one of the concepts in this class.

The question is is this always true, and the answer is no.

Units 3 and 4 were relatively abstract to some degree, intentionally so.

In English, the usual sentence structure is Subject Verb Object Complement.

I decided that I would learn Arabic, which turns out to be a supremely logical language.

The meaning of a word is determined by the context where it is used.

Text excerpt showing the unknown word in its context.

It depends on the context.

This branch of the family is all about representation.

I am just gonna pause for a moment to let you think about that.

The meaning of words can change according to their context.

So, as the old saying goes, if it looks like a linguistic script and it acts like a linguistic script, then perhaps we may have a linguistic script on our hands.

For me, it is about re imagining this cultural discourse in an international context.

So in lecture, we spent a lot of time learning about context free grammars and languages.

like HTML or SQL, the language of database queries.

So for example, this particular sentence consists of a subject, a verb, and an object, okay?

If we have a regular language, that language is context free, and, well, it's also regular.

Equations. The universal language.

Culture destroys language.

Culture destroys languages.

The set of languages that can be described by re write rules or grammers like this are called context free languages.

Here I've written down four claims.