Content deleted Content added
Missing paths - still deterministic? |
|||
Line 47:
==Missing paths - still deterministic?==
The definition for DFA states that there should be ''one and only one'' transition for each pair of states and inputs. The definition for NFA only addresses the case of a single input leading to multiple, different states. What about the case where an input leads off to a "dummy state" that just loops back to itself on every input? If we just eliminate the dummy state and any inputs leading to it, does the diagram still represent a DFA? If not, is it an NFA? Or something else? Thanks, [[User:Maghnus|Maghnus]] 15:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Ambigiuous''': The description may be slightly ambiguous in that ''every'' pair of states and inputs should have exactly one transition. As I understand it, missing transitions are unacceptable for a DFA, and hence would be classes as an NFA. [[User:Pyrre|Pyrre]] ([[User talk:Pyrre|talk]]) 03:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
| |||