|NFA with non-deterministic outputs firstname.lastname@example.org (2014-04-07)|
|Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs email@example.com (George Neuner) (2014-04-08)|
|Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs firstname.lastname@example.org (2014-04-13)|
|Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs email@example.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-04-14)|
|Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs firstname.lastname@example.org (2014-09-09)|
|Re: NFA with non-deterministic outputs email@example.com (2014-10-20)|
|Date:||Tue, 9 Sep 2014 14:26:07 -0700 (PDT)|
|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?
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). ...
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.