Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
It can only choose a new state, the result of following the transition. A pushdown automaton (PDA) differs from a finite state machine in two ways: It can use the top of the stack to decide which transition to take. It can manipulate the stack as part of performing a transition. A pushdown automaton reads a given input string from left to right.
The two are not equivalent for the deterministic pushdown automaton (although they are for the non-deterministic pushdown automaton). The languages accepted by empty stack are those languages that are accepted by final state and are prefix-free: no word in the language is the prefix of another word in the language. [2] [3]
An embedded pushdown automaton or EPDA is a computational model for parsing languages generated by tree-adjoining grammars (TAGs). It is similar to the context-free grammar-parsing pushdown automaton, but instead of using a plain stack to store symbols, it has a stack of iterated stacks that store symbols, giving TAGs a generative capacity between context-free and context-sensitive grammars ...
A two-way deterministic finite automaton (2DFA) is an abstract machine, a generalized version of the deterministic finite automaton (DFA) which can revisit characters already processed. As in a DFA, there are a finite number of states with transitions between them based on the current character, but each transition is also labelled with a value ...
The language consisting of strings with equal numbers of 'a's and 'b's, which we showed was not a regular language, can be decided by a push-down automaton. Also, in general, a push-down automaton can behave just like a finite-state machine, so it can decide any language which is regular. This model of computation is thus strictly more powerful ...
The earlier concept of Turing machine was also included in the discipline along with new forms of infinite-state automata, such as pushdown automata. 1956 saw the publication of Automata Studies, which collected work by scientists including Claude Shannon, W. Ross Ashby, John von Neumann, Marvin Minsky, Edward F. Moore, and Stephen Cole Kleene. [4]
the first configuration must be a valid initial configuration of the automaton and; each transition between adjacent configurations must be valid according to the transition rules of the automaton. In addition, to be complete, a computation history must be finite and the final configuration must be a valid terminal configuration of the automaton.
A paper by Chakraborty, Saxena and Katti entitled "Fifty years of automata simulation: a review" in ACM Inroads magazine in December 2011 stated the following about JFLAP: [8] "The effort put into developing this tool is unparalleled in the field of simulation of automata. As a result, today it is the most sophisticated tool for simulating ...