|working with very large Finite State Machines email@example.com (Steve Bradtke) (2001-04-22)|
|Re: working with very large Finite State Machines firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-04-26)|
|Re: working with very large Finite State Machines email@example.com (David Chase) (2001-04-26)|
|Re: working with very large Finite State Machines firstname.lastname@example.org (Ralph Boland) (2001-04-26)|
|Re: working with very large Finite State Machines email@example.com (Rodney M. Bates) (2001-04-29)|
|From:||"Rodney M. Bates" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||29 Apr 2001 02:08:02 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||29 Apr 2001 02:08:02 EDT|
I don't know if this applies to your problem, but in many FSMs with a
large state set, the state set can be cartesian factored into a tuple
of several components. Taken literally, the state set is the
cartesian product of the value sets of the components. The input set
might be factorable too.
Often, the transition function may then have patterns which allow it
to be expressed as a function of the components, much more
compactly. I don't know if such patterns and factorings exist in your
application. If not, then just defining the states and transitions is
a big problem too, because it has to be done by brute force
> I am working on a project that involves the construction of
> very large Finite State Machines (up to approximately 10^7 states).
Rodney M. Bates
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.