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:
“True variety is in that plenitude of real and unexpected elements, in the branch charged with blue flowers thrusting itself, against all expectations, from the springtime hedge which seems already too full, while the purely formal imitation of variety ... is but void and uniformity, that is, that which is most opposed to variety....”
—Marcel Proust (18711922)
“The physicians say, they are not materialists; but they are:MSpirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness: O so thin!But the definition of spiritual should be, that which is its own evidence. What notions do they attach to love! what to religion! One would not willingly pronounce these words in their hearing, and give them the occasion to profane them.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (18031882)