Scribd
Upload
72 views6 pages

Automata

The document discusses minimizing deterministic finite automata (DFAs) by removing redundant states. It describes how to build equivalence classes of states and combine equivalent states to produce the smallest possible DFA. An algorithm is provided that marks equivalent state pairs, combines unmarked states, and results in a minimal DFA. An example applies the algorithm to minimize a sample DFA.

Uploaded by

Sathee Mitra
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views6 pages

Automata

The document discusses minimizing deterministic finite automata (DFAs) by removing redundant states. It describes how to build equivalence classes of states and combine equivalent states to produce the smallest possible DFA. An algorithm is provided that marks equivalent state pairs, combines unmarked states, and results in a minimal DFA. An example applies the algorithm to minimize a sample DFA.

Uploaded by

Sathee Mitra
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

' $

DFA Minimization

DFA generated from regular expressions via the


construction REG → NFA → DFA is in general
not the “smallest” possible DFA.
Some states are unreachable, some are redundant
(i.e. have similar behavior to other states).
Example consider DFA
q0 a -> q1 q0 b -> q3
q1 b -> q2 q1 a -> q2
q2 b -> q2 q2 a -> q2
q3 a -> q3 q3 b -> q3

q0 start state q1,q2 final states


States q1 and q2 show identical behavior.

& %
-0
' $

DFA Minimization Idea

• Remove unreachable states, i.e. states which


cannot be reached from the start state.
• Build equivalence classes among states via a
fixpoint construction.
• Two states (q,q’) cannot be equivalent if one
is a final state and the other is not.
• If from (q1,q1’) we can reach (q2,q2’) via
q1 a → q2 and q1’ a → q2’ and we know that
(q2,q2’) cannot be equivalent, then (q1,q1’)
cannot be equivalent either.

& %
-1
' $

DFA Minimization Algorithm

Given DFA M = (Σ, Q, δ, q0 , F ).


1. Remove unreachable states.
2. Setup marking tables of pairs (q, q 0 ) where
q 6= q 0 .
(a) Mark all pairs (q, q 0 ) where q ∈ F and
q 0 6∈ F (and vice versa). (These are the
states which cannot be equivalent)
(b) For each unmarked pair (q, q 0 ) and a ∈ Σ
if (δ(q, a), δ(q 0, a)) is marked, then mark
(q, q 0 ).
(c) Repeat until there are no more changes.

& %
-2
' $

3. Combine states.
For each unmarked (q, q 0 )
(a) If p a → q 0 then add p a → q.
(b) If q 0 a → p then add q a → p.
(c) Remove q’.
(d) Remove p a → q 0 , q 0 a → p for all p ∈ Q and
a ∈ Σ (i.e. remove q 0 and all transitions
leading to and from q 0 ).
4. Resulting DFA is minimal.

& %
-3
' $

Example

q0 start, q1, q2 final states


q0 a -> q1 q0 b -> q3
q1 b -> q2 q1 a -> q2
q2 b -> q2 q2 a -> q2
q3 a -> q3 q3 b -> q3

Marking table (step 2.):


(q0,q1) marked (q1,q0) marked
(q0,q2) marked (q2,q0) marked
(q0,q3) (q3,q0)
(q1,q2) (q2,q1)
(q1,q3) marked (q3,q1) marked
(q2,q3) marked (q3,q2) marked

& %
-4
' $

Combine states (step 3.):

Consider unmarked (q1,q2) we have that


Step 3a.)
q2 a -> q2 q1 a -> q2
q2 b -> q2 q1 b -> q2
therefore add
q2 a -> q1 q1 a -> q1
q2 b -> q1 q1 b -> q1
Step 3b.)
q2 a -> q2 q2 b -> q2
therefore add
q1 a -> q2 q1 b -> q2
Step 3c,d.) remove q2 and its transitions
....
Resulting DFA:
q0 a -> q1 q0 b -> q3
q1 b -> q1 q1 a -> q1
q3 a -> q3 q3 b -> q3

& %
-5

You might also like