From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.173.4 with SMTP id n4mr13364546qaz.3.1377188225156; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.20.3 with SMTP id j3mr1346261ige.2.1377188225111; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder02.blueworldhosting.com!news.glorb.com!fx3no4006723qab.0!news-out.google.com!he10ni3061qab.0!nntp.google.com!fx3no4006716qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:17:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87txiir2zj.fsf@nl106-137-194.student.uu.se> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.183.207.38; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.183.207.38 References: <87mwoastdi.fsf@nl106-137-194.student.uu.se> <9d7e5c6c-aeb9-4ac1-a7b0-c048061ae4c6@googlegroups.com> <87zjsar72v.fsf@nl106-137-194.student.uu.se> <87txiir2zj.fsf@nl106-137-194.student.uu.se> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <8f32f4e3-71e1-413d-978e-859323b3f6f4@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: RTS graph and "temporal formulas" From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:17:05 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Bytes: 5019 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183103 Date: 2013-08-22T09:17:04-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 7:19:19 PM UTC-5, Emanuel Berg wrote: > I wrote: > > Only one more thing, for A, the "Moore-nomenclature response" is x > <=3D 10, but transitions from A are at x < 5 and x > 11. Does this > mean that the x < 5 transition is never made, You cross the line of answering the test question for you when you ask wh= ether a transition will be made or not. > because until x =3D 11, there is computation at A? Upon traversal of a transition that ingress into A (and only upon such tr= aversal), there exists computation that consumes at most 10 clock ticks. I= t is ambiguous in your professor's sloppy nomenclature whether that State-A= computation is evoked upon start-up of the 7a FSA, such as we discussed ab= ove by traversal of an epsilon transition that initializes x to zero. As s= tated, I would assume that the initialization of x is magic and that the St= ate-A computation is not evoked upon start-up of the 7a FSA. > Or does the A condition *hold* when > it is OK to make transitions? Your terminology of "hold" is ambiguous. If your "hold" means logically = hold, then yes, the purple characterizations are absolute truth and always = hold without exception: upon every entry into a state in the 7a FSA that h= as a purple execution-time characterization, that characterization is never= false. I.e., the software always runs exactly as characterized, when so t= riggered. If your "hold" means pause, then no. The purple characterizations of exe= cution-time are ***not*** criteria that govern whether the entry-into-state= computation executes or not, nor that govern when the entry-into-state com= putation executes. Upon entry, that state's computation commences immediat= ely and always executes to completion (as characterized). > Or doesn't the A condition As I have said before, your confusion is because you are sloppy with your= terminology. The purple logical relations are not _a priori_ conditions (= i.e., not criteria, not constraints governing a decision). The purple logi= cal relations are _a posteriori_ reports of how long the entry-into-state c= omputation took to complete. > impact flow, The purple characterizations do not directly affect a decision-making cap= ability within the machinery that operates the FSA. The purple characteriz= ations may cause factual cascading ramifications (e.g., the passage of time= as measured by clock ticks expended by the entry-into-state computation), = where those cascading ramifications that are picked us by a sensor (e.g., r= eading the clock), where those sensor readings in turn affect whether a tra= nsition is traversed, as governed by the green stimulus-constraints on (som= e) transitions. Impact flow? Directly, no. Indirectly, perhaps, and anal= ysis thereof is what your professor is requesting in the exam questions 7.1= and 7.2 and subbullets thereof. > it just tells something about the system at state A? Yes, as I have been saying, the green logical relations are _a posteriori= _ reports of how the entry-into-state computation turned out. > Or does computation "fork" so there are numerous processes all around > the graph? No. FSAs are DFAs (deterministic nonforkingly, despite the possibility o= f single epsilon transitions borrowed from NFAs, as we discussed above). F= SAs are not a GLR parser, which does in fact have the exploratoration-of-hy= potheticals forking behavior that you (incorrectly for FSAs) devise.