1959
DOI: 10.1109/tec.1959.5222697
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minimizing the Number of States in Incompletely Specified Sequential Switching Functions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
68
0
5

Year Published

1962
1962
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 277 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
68
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…By considering a collection of n/3 independent triangles, we see that this bound is best possible. Paull & Unger [36] designed a procedure that generates all maximal independent sets in a graph in O(n 2 ) time per generated set. Based on the ideas introduced by Lawler [26], we present a dynamic program across the subsets with a time complexity of O * (2.4422 n ).…”
Section: The Travelling Salesman Problem (Tsp)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By considering a collection of n/3 independent triangles, we see that this bound is best possible. Paull & Unger [36] designed a procedure that generates all maximal independent sets in a graph in O(n 2 ) time per generated set. Based on the ideas introduced by Lawler [26], we present a dynamic program across the subsets with a time complexity of O * (2.4422 n ).…”
Section: The Travelling Salesman Problem (Tsp)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An efficient algorithm for computing such compatible and incompatible state-pairs is based on the use of merger tables (Kohavi, 1978;Paull, and Unger, 1959 Heymann & Degani, 2007 for the details of the algorithmic procedure for generating compatibles). The next step consists of collecting from the maximal compatibles a suitable subset adequate for construction of a correct and succinct user model.…”
Section: Generation Of User Models and Interfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We reduce the problem to the minimization problem of incompletely specified finite state machines [15]. The L Sep algorithm translates the 3DFA C i into an incompletely specified finite state machine M. It then invokes the algorithm in [15] to obtain a minimal finite state machine M i consistent with M. Finally, M i is converted to a DFA A i .…”
Section: Finding a Minimal Consistent Dfamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We first use Paull and Unger's algorithm [15] to find the sets of "maximal" compatible states 6 , which are the candidates for the states in the reduced DFA. Consider an example shown in Figure 5.…”
Section: Heuristics For Efficiencymentioning
confidence: 99%