Formal Definition
A GNFA can be defined as a 5-tuple, (S, Σ, T, s, a), consisting of
- a finite set of states (S);
- a finite set called the alphabet (Σ);
- a transition function (T : (S ∖ {a}) × (S ∖ {s}) → R);
- a start state (s ∈ S);
- an accept state (a ∈ S);
where R is the collection of all regular expressions over the alphabet Σ.
The transition function takes as its argument a pair of two states and outputs a regular expression (the label of the transition). This differs from other finite state machines, which take as input a single state and an input from the alphabet (or the empty string in the case of nondeterministic finite state machines) and outputs the next state (or the set of possible states in the case of nondeterministic finite state machines). A DFA or NFA can easily be converted into a GNFA and then the GNFA can be easily converted into a regular expression by repeatedly collapsing parts of it to single edges until S = {s, a}. Similarly, GNFAs can be reduced to NFAs by changing regular expression operators into new edges until each edge is labelled with a regular expression matching a single string of length at most 1. NFAs, in turn, can be reduced to DFAs using the powerset construction. This shows that GNFAs recognize the same set of formal languages as DFAs and NFAs.
Read more about this topic: Generalized Nondeterministic Finite Automaton
Famous quotes containing the words formal and/or definition:
“That anger can be expressed through words and non-destructive activities; that promises are intended to be kept; that cleanliness and good eating habits are aspects of self-esteem; that compassion is an attribute to be prized—all these lessons are ones children can learn far more readily through the living example of their parents than they ever can through formal instruction.”
—Fred Rogers (20th century)
“The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
—William James (1842–1910)