This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Finite-state machine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
I understand this is pretty much the real deal but like the entire first half of this page has no references. -- Sgtlion ( talk) 21:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is a wiki page for an Infinite State Machine, so why does this page seem to be distinguishing itself from that page by insisting it is about a FINITE state machine? (In other words, the concept is STATE MACHINE, and the page should be as well.)
I see, upon further reading, that "Turing Machine" is offered as an example of an "Infinite State Machine." I think my criticism is still well founded although no longer well expressed. For all practical applications, "infinite" machines are irrelevant. And even when discussing what a Turing Machine might be able to do, to make the argument that it can solve some problem with an infinite amount of memory is to move the discussion ENTIRELY to the realms of the theoretical--which, of course, is just showing by example that the problem has no actual solution. Engineers learning about state machines don't need to spend any time trying to decide if their problems could or could not be solved if only they had an infinite amount of memory. In practice, when someone shows that a Turing Machine can solve something, an obvious next step is to decide how much memory it would actually use on a given problem, AKA "stack space." Mdlayt ( talk) 18:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
i cant get through the mathematical fsm its just so confusing can anybody explain it in an easy way ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Faizan jaffri ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Twice now, my edits had been reverted by those who honestly seem to believe this. They've seemed to had reverted this based upon the assumption that the other models of computations, Turing machines, especially, are a lot more powerful than Finite State Machines and are, therefore, can not be considered Finite State Machines in their own right.
This is in spite of the fact that both pushdown automation and Turing machines uses state machines as the core of their logic. Pushdown automations and Turing machines are, in full effect, both finite state machines, those designed to manipulate a stack-based system and tape-based memory, respectively.
(I must admit that I was maybe wording my edits incorrectly, but if others had realized what I am trying to say, they should've at least put in the effort of actually rewording my post instead of reverting them.) Karjam, AKA KarjamP ( talk) 07:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Finite-state machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
ftp://reports.stanford.edu/pub/cstr/reports/cs/tr/71/190/CS-TR-71-190.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The article currently has both "a FSM" and "an FSM". Only one should be used. Which one is correct depends on how it's pronounced by those working in the field -- do you say "an eff-ess-em" or do you expand it in full? 195.157.65.228 ( talk) 15:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Why, when referencing figure 4, does the the acceptor section say that state 7 is the only accepting state? It says accepting states can either accept or reject input, and in the figure four other states can accept or reject the input. So aren't all states, except state 6, accepting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.141.98 ( talk) 19:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
About the transition function of NFAs, a paragraph at the formal definition section here reads:
δ is the state-transition function: δ : S × Σ → S (in a nondeterministic finite automaton it would be δ : S × Σ → P(S), i.e. would return a set of states);
At the article on NFAs, however, the transition function is described as δ : S × (Σ ∪ {ε}) → P(S), not δ : S × Σ → P(S).
This is an inconsistency, correct? Which one is right? Qwertesque ( talk) 13:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Finite-state machine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
I understand this is pretty much the real deal but like the entire first half of this page has no references. -- Sgtlion ( talk) 21:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is a wiki page for an Infinite State Machine, so why does this page seem to be distinguishing itself from that page by insisting it is about a FINITE state machine? (In other words, the concept is STATE MACHINE, and the page should be as well.)
I see, upon further reading, that "Turing Machine" is offered as an example of an "Infinite State Machine." I think my criticism is still well founded although no longer well expressed. For all practical applications, "infinite" machines are irrelevant. And even when discussing what a Turing Machine might be able to do, to make the argument that it can solve some problem with an infinite amount of memory is to move the discussion ENTIRELY to the realms of the theoretical--which, of course, is just showing by example that the problem has no actual solution. Engineers learning about state machines don't need to spend any time trying to decide if their problems could or could not be solved if only they had an infinite amount of memory. In practice, when someone shows that a Turing Machine can solve something, an obvious next step is to decide how much memory it would actually use on a given problem, AKA "stack space." Mdlayt ( talk) 18:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
i cant get through the mathematical fsm its just so confusing can anybody explain it in an easy way ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Faizan jaffri ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Twice now, my edits had been reverted by those who honestly seem to believe this. They've seemed to had reverted this based upon the assumption that the other models of computations, Turing machines, especially, are a lot more powerful than Finite State Machines and are, therefore, can not be considered Finite State Machines in their own right.
This is in spite of the fact that both pushdown automation and Turing machines uses state machines as the core of their logic. Pushdown automations and Turing machines are, in full effect, both finite state machines, those designed to manipulate a stack-based system and tape-based memory, respectively.
(I must admit that I was maybe wording my edits incorrectly, but if others had realized what I am trying to say, they should've at least put in the effort of actually rewording my post instead of reverting them.) Karjam, AKA KarjamP ( talk) 07:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Finite-state machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
ftp://reports.stanford.edu/pub/cstr/reports/cs/tr/71/190/CS-TR-71-190.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The article currently has both "a FSM" and "an FSM". Only one should be used. Which one is correct depends on how it's pronounced by those working in the field -- do you say "an eff-ess-em" or do you expand it in full? 195.157.65.228 ( talk) 15:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Why, when referencing figure 4, does the the acceptor section say that state 7 is the only accepting state? It says accepting states can either accept or reject input, and in the figure four other states can accept or reject the input. So aren't all states, except state 6, accepting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.141.98 ( talk) 19:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
About the transition function of NFAs, a paragraph at the formal definition section here reads:
δ is the state-transition function: δ : S × Σ → S (in a nondeterministic finite automaton it would be δ : S × Σ → P(S), i.e. would return a set of states);
At the article on NFAs, however, the transition function is described as δ : S × (Σ ∪ {ε}) → P(S), not δ : S × Σ → P(S).
This is an inconsistency, correct? Which one is right? Qwertesque ( talk) 13:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)