Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs

wyse03br@gmail.com
Tue, 9 Sep 2014 14:26:07 -0700 (PDT)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
NFA with non-deterministic outputs wyse03br@gmail.com (2014-04-07)
Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2014-04-08)
Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs federation2005@netzero.com (2014-04-13)
Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-04-14)
Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs wyse03br@gmail.com (2014-09-09)
Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs federation2005@netzero.com (2014-10-20)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: wyse03br@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 14:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 14-04-004 14-04-010
Keywords: lex
Posted-Date: 09 Sep 2014 17:33:57 EDT

Going back to this topic, tks for the updates. The non-deterministic
FSM seems to be the best approach indeed. Your rex tool seems to be
suited to my needs, but I couldn't find it anywhere either. Do you
suggest anything else?


Rgds


On Sunday, April 13, 2014 3:51:36 PM UTC-3, federat...@netzero.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 7, 2014 2:17:44 PM UTC-5, wyse...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I need to model some inter-operating FSMs and due to the lack of
> > details in their specification, modelling them as NFAs seems to be the
> > best approach.
>
> A finite automaton models a regular language -- technically: a rational subset
> of a free monoid X*, where X is the underlying alphabet.
>
> A "finite automaton with outputs" is a finite state *machine*, which models a
> *rational transduction*, which is a rational subset of the product monoid X* x
> Y*, where X and Y are the alphabets respectively for inputs and outputs.
>
> So, no. NFA's are not the appropriate model to use here. Rather, one would use
> a non-deterministic FSM (finite state machine). ...

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.