Can´t find anything affirmative about it. And a NFA with any epsilon transition is a epsilon-NFA ?
Thanks.
DFA doesn't have epsilon transitions.If it had it, it could transit from current state to other state without any input i.e. with nothing , not even {} or phi. And as definition , we know that the input must be from the input set.
Hope this cleared your doubt ...
From the definition of DFA ,"Deterministic Finite Automata is a machine that can't move on other state without getting any input".And since epsilon means nothing.Hence DFA can't move on epsilon moves.
Whereas from the definition of NFA,"Non deterministic Finite Automata is a machine that may move on other state without getting any input".So NFA can move on epsilon moves.
DFA must have a definite input symbol to move from one state to another state. Epsilon move isn't allow in DFA, because it'll change DFA into NFA. For e.g., suppose you are in state Q1, and you have a transition (Q1, e) = Q2, in this case you can directly go to Q2 without apply any input or you can stay in Q1 state, so you have two choosing opportunity at state Q1. In case of DFA you mustn't have any choosing criteria. That's why DFA don't have epsilon moves.
If the start state is also an end state then the fa accepts lamda. Also, if the fa specifically shows a transition from one state to the next with lamda then lamda can be considered an input.
Related
Consider there is a minimized DFA that accepts the language L. The problem is to find the minimum number of states in its complement.
Now if I take the complement of this DFA i;e if I make the non-final states as final and final states as non-final, do I also need to worry about minimizing this complemented DFA?
DFA - Deterministic Finite Automata
Lets start with that is accepted by a minimum DFA . Then we can retrieve the DFA of the complement (as you have mentioned). So let's derive a DFA which accepts which has the same amount of states as .
Now Lets assume that is not a minimum DFA of
we should be able to reduce the number of states in it further to get a DFA . But getting the complement of should give us a new DFA which accepts which is but has less states than making it not a minimum DFA of .
So our assumption that not being the miniumum of is wrong.
I just started learning Theory of Computation this semester and a bit confused by the phrase "DFA for a language". If it is asked to construct a DFA for some collection of binary strings L, does it mean to find DFA M with L(M)=L or just $L(M)\supset L$?
Most compiler/theory courses tend to have different styles surrounding teaching definitions of deterministic finite automata and formal languages, but I'll try to make this description as agnostic as possible.
The phrase "DFA for a language" loosely means: a DFA which accepts every word in the language and rejects every word not in the language.
The way I was taught DFAs is to have final/accepting states and regular states which removes the necessity for an implicit error state.
This means that a DFA accepts a word if the state it is in at the end of input is accepting and it rejects the word if the state is not accepting.
Ex:
Let's define L as the language which contains an even number of 1s. These will be binary strings so the symbols are just 0 and 1.
00, 110, 111, 1111, etc are examples of words in this language. Notice that the empty string is in this language.
We can have two states in our DFA. The starting state, let's call it even 1s, is also an accepting state because 0 ones is even. The other state is odd 1s, this is not accepting.
As for transitions, when even 1s receives a 1, it transitions to odd 1s. And when odd 1s receives a 1, it transitions to even 1s.
Now, the number of 0s doesn't matter, so in either state, it transitions to itself.
Apologies for the double arrow, this website is great but I couldn't figure out how to separate the transitions between even 1s and odd 1s
Deterministic Finite Automaton (DFA)
In DFA, for each input symbol, one can determine the state to which the machine will move. Hence, it is called Deterministic Automaton. As it has a finite number of states, the machine is called a Deterministic Finite Machine or Deterministic Finite Automaton.
Formal Definition of a DFA
A DFA can be represented by a 5-tuple (Q, ∑, δ, q0, F) where −
-> Q is a finite set of states.
-> ∑ is a finite set of symbols called the alphabet.
-> δ is the transition function where δ: Q × ∑ → Q
-> q0 is the initial state from where any input is processed (q0 ∈ Q).
-> F is a set of final state/states of Q (F ⊆ Q).
Write your question in precise way. here DFA for a language means that you need to construct machine for particular language only not it's subset or superset. construct DFA maachine for which L(M)= L.
Is it possible for a DFA to change its state without accepting its state i.e-
for instance,
A(self loop of (a,b) over state A)--->B..........
for input symbols - (a,b)
In computer science epsilon transistions are used for that. But you will usually get a NDFA, and you can always eliminate the epsilon transitions to obtain an equivalent automata without epsilon transitions.
I am to construct a DFA from the intersection of two simpler DFAs. The first simpler DFA recognizes languages of all strings that have at least three 0s, and the second simpler language DFA recognizes languages of strings of at most two 1s. The alphabet is (0,1). I'm not sure how to construct a larger DFA combining the two. Thanks!
Here's a general idea:
The most straightforward way to do this is to have different paths for counting your 0s that are based on the number of 1s you've seen, such that they are "parallel" to each other. Move from one layer of the path to the next any time you see a 1, and then move from the last layer to a trap state if you see a third 1. Depending on the exact nature of the assignment you might be able to condense this, but once you have a basic layout you can determine that. Typically you can combine states from the first DFA with states in the second DFA to produce a smaller end result.
Here's a more mathematical explanation:
Constructing automata for the
intersection operation.
Assume we are
given two DFA M1 = (S1, q(1) 0 , T1,
F1) and M2 = (S2, q(2) 0 , T2, F2).
These two DFA recognize languages L1 =
L(M1) and L2 = L(M2). We want to
design a DFA M= (S, q0, T, F) that
recognizes the intersection L1 ∩L2. We
use the idea of constructing the DFA
for the union of languages. Given an
input w, we run M1 and M2 on w
simultaneously as we explained for the
union operation. Once we finish the
runs of M1 and of M2 on w, we look at
the resulting end states of these two
runs. If both end states are accepting
then we accept w, otherwise we reject
w.
When constructing the new transition function, the easy way to think of it is by using pairs of states. For example, consider the following DFAs:
Now, we can start combining these by traversing both DFAs at the same time. For example, both start at state 1. Now what happens if we see an a as input? Well, DFA1 will go from 1->2, and DFA2 will go from 1->3. When combining, then, we can say that the intersection will go from state "1,1" (both DFAs are in state 1) to state "2,3". State 2 is an accept state in DFA1 and state 3 is an accept state in DFA2, so state "2,3" is an accept state in our new DFA3. We can repeat this for all states/transitions and end up with:
Does that make sense?
Reference: Images found in this assignment from Cornell University.
The simplest way would be using the 2DFA model: from the end state of the first DFA(the one testing for at least 3 zeros) jump to the start state of the second one, and reverse to the beginning of the input. Then let the second DFA test the string.
I'm thinking so, because the upper bound would be the 2^n, and given that these are both finite machines, the intersection for both the n-state NFA and the DFA with 2^n or less states will be valid.
Am I wrong here?
You're right. 2^n is an upper limit, so the generated DFA can't have more states than that limit. But it's the worst-case scenario. In most common scenarios there's less states than that in the resulting DFA. Sometimes it could be even less than in the original NFA.
But as far as I know, the algorithm to predict how many states the resulting DFA will actually have, doesn't exist yet. So if you'll find it, please let me know ;)
That is correct. As you probably already know, both DFAs and NFAs only accept regular languages. That means that they are equal in the languages they can accept. Also, the most primitive way of transforming a NFA to a DFA is with subset construction (also called powerset construction), where you simply create a state in the DFA for every combination of states in the NFA. This is called the powerset of states, which could at most be 2^n.
But, as mentioned by #SasQ that is the worst case scenario. Typically you will not end up with that many states if you use Hopcroft's algorithm or Brozowski's algorithm.