|NFA with non-deterministic outputs email@example.com (2014-04-07)|
|Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs firstname.lastname@example.org (George Neuner) (2014-04-08)|
|Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs email@example.com (2014-04-13)|
|Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs firstname.lastname@example.org (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-04-14)|
|Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs email@example.com (2014-09-09)|
|From:||Kaz Kylheku <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Mon, 14 Apr 2014 04:34:51 +0000 (UTC)|
|Organization:||Aioe.org NNTP Server|
|Posted-Date:||14 Apr 2014 22:05:12 EDT|
On 2014-04-13, email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> So, no. NFA's are not the appropriate model to use here. Rather, one would use
> a non-deterministic FSM (finite state machine).
"FA" stands for "finite automaton", which is a synonym of FSM, "finite state machine".
There is no difference between "NFA" and "non-deterministic FSM".
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.