Formal Definition
An NFA is represented formally by a 5-tuple, (Q, Σ, Δ, q0, F), consisting of
- a finite set of states Q
- a finite set of input symbols Σ
- a transition relation Δ : Q × Σ → P(Q).
- an initial (or start) state q0 ∈ Q
- a set of states F distinguished as accepting (or final) states F ⊆ Q.
Here, P(Q) denotes the power set of Q. Let w = a1a2 ... an be a word over the alphabet Σ. The automaton M accepts the word w if a sequence of states, r0,r1, ..., rn, exists in Q with the following conditions:
- r0 = q0
- ri+1 ∈ Δ(ri, ai+1), for i = 0, ..., n−1
- rn ∈ F.
In words, the first condition says that the machine starts in the start state q0. The second condition says that given each character of string w, the machine will transition from state to state according to the transition relation Δ. The last condition says that the machine accepts w if the last input of w causes the machine to halt in one of the accepting states. Otherwise, it is said that the automaton rejects the string. The set of strings M accepts is the language recognized by M and this language is denoted by L(M).
We can also define L(M) in terms of Δ*: Q × Σ* → P(Q) such that:
- Δ*(r, ε)= {r} where ε is the empty string, and
- If x ∈ Σ*, a ∈ Σ, and Δ*(r, x)={r1, r2,..., rk} then Δ*(r, xa)= Δ(r1, a)∪...∪Δ(rk, a).
Now L(M) = {w | Δ*(q0, w) ∩ F ≠ ∅}.
Note that there is a single initial state, which is not necessary. Sometimes, NFAs are defined with a set of initial states. There is an easy construction that translates a NFA with multiple initial states to a NFA with single initial state, which provides a convenient notation.
For more elementary introduction of the formal definition see automata theory.
Read more about this topic: Nondeterministic Finite Automaton
Famous quotes containing the words formal and/or definition:
“Two clergymen disputing whether ordination would be valid without the imposition of both hands, the more formal one said, Do you think the Holy Dove could fly down with only one wing?”
—Horace Walpole (17171797)
“According to our social pyramid, all men who feel displaced racially, culturally, and/or because of economic hardships will turn on those whom they feel they can order and humiliate, usually women, children, and animalsjust as they have been ordered and humiliated by those privileged few who are in power. However, this definition does not explain why there are privileged men who behave this way toward women.”
—Ana Castillo (b. 1953)