title: Is every LL(1) grammar also a LALR(1) grammar?
body: <p>So one source says it is and another says its not</p>
  
  <p>one source says this : </p>
  
  <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/tzDy2.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/tzDy2.jpg" alt="https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a94c48361571eeafdd5ba5fb63c24729-c"></a></p>
  
  <p>another says this : </p>
  
  <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/TqAkP.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/TqAkP.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
  
  <p>the closest answer i found is this :</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36652221/relationship-between-lr0-ll0-lalr1-etc">Relationship between LR(0), LL(0), LALR(1), etc?</a></p>
  
  <p>but this doesn't answer the relation between LL(1) and LALR(1)</p>
  
  <p><strong>also</strong> if you can answer the more general question, which is what is the relation between LL(k) and LALR(k) it would be even more helpful </p>
  
  <p>thanks.</p>