User:Karl Dickman/Threads/09/03/10

Mealy Machine

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

I am concerned with the edit to remove statements regarding the nature of finite state automata. Clearly, no state machine has an infinite number of states (if only because from the practical point of view, man does not live long enough to define an infinite machine). Hence, the edit seems a bit confused. Might you take a moment to clarify (at least for me) the point you are trying to make, and the accuracy of the edit you made? Some relevant references would be useful. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my edit had nothing to do with in/finiteness. I merely wanted to emphasize that the Mealy machine is a transducer, because it produces an output string rather than merely moving from state to state. Karl Dickman ^talk 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see; then you will perhaps not mind some minor adjustment (should I still think it necessary) in this relation. Still, when I've completed, would you mind terribly reviewing any edit? Thanks you much for the clarification. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, about the synchronised thread, thank you for the introduction. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You're edits are entirely correct. It took me a while to figure out exactly what was meant by both versions. The real point of the difference between a Mealy machine and a Moore machine is that the Mealy machine generates its output based on the sequence of transitions that occur when processing some input, whereas the Moore machine generates its output based on the sequence of states that occur when processing some input. Come to think of it, I think that contrasting Moore's and Mealy's models is perhaps a little tangential for the introduction. Perhaps it should be moved into the body of the article? Karl Dickman ^talk 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)