Increasing the length results in making the computing of the hash code too slow for practical use.Īnother approach was having a set of words and testing which of them the automaton accepts but finding the right ones, I think, isn't that trivial. Let L be a language whose FA consist of 5 acceptance states and 11 non final. But it seems to produce too many collisions on NFAs with 4 states. Explanation: It is possible to represent a finite automaton graphically. 5 and then I map the set of accepted words to a 64-bit long (the amount of binary words of length max. In addition, the fsqa form an infinite hierarchy of language. The language accepted by this automaton is given by the regular expression A B C D. The languages accepted by fsqa form a proper subset of the languages accepted by ftqa. Consider the following Finite State Automaton. My first thought was doing a DFS on the transitions and finding all the accepted words until length max. We propose the concept of finite stop quantum automata (ftqa) based on Hilbert space and compare it with the finite state quantum automata (fsqa) proposed by Moore and Crutchfield (Theoretical Computer Science 237(12), 2000, 275306). Therefore, I have to use some good hash function, to avoid compairing with too many automatas. I'm working on project in Java (but I think it doesn't depend on the language) where I'm generating small (4 states max) nondeterministic finite state automata on binary alphabet and I have to check fast the generated automaton for equivalence with the previous ones.
0 kommentar(er)
