Ni/g/gers can't even cs

Prove that a regular language can be recognized by a nondeterministic finite automata. I can do this shit in my sleep, but I have no faith in the Jow Forumsays.

Attached: 0E8.jpg (1500x844, 104K)

Do your own homework Jamal

And give it back

>nondeterministic finite automata
you can't even get your buzzwords right idiot

lul typical ni/g/ger
this is a trivial proof, the hard one is proving that a language recognized by a nondeterminstic finite automata is regular. Fucking nu-Jow Forums

Attached: D49.jpg (1920x1080, 143K)

who is this wholesome christian woman?

if you were even educated you would know how trivial my statement is, go back to scrubbing toilets Jow Forumsay

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 99K)

>this is a trivial proof
Then do it yourself instead of asking Jow Forums to do it for you. Loser.

Regular language class is equivalent to deterministic finite state automata.
No deterministic finite state automatas have the same power of fsm (constructively add a state in fsm for every split of state in ndfsm abd you get the equivalent fsm).

The formal proof is non trivial tho, you are full of shit.

A regular language can be expressed as regular expression, which can be represented as deterministic finite state automata.

Nondeterministic finite state automata can be reduced to deterministic ones.

Your question is not in need of a proof as it is true per definition. Now fuck right back off.

What are you storing in that image user...
Do I detect pizza!

Attached: 250px-Spy_Medic_Halloween_Mask.png (250x276, 85K)

finally, proper Jow Forumsentoomen who aren't larping zoomers
The formal if and only if proof is non-trivial, correct. But it's only the reverse that's difficult (NFA implying regular language), not the forward direction which is indeed true per definition.

Attached: 5C9.gif.gif (288x316, 59K)

>prove that a tokenizer and parser does tokenizing and parsing.

>not the forward direction which is indeed true per definition.

It's trivial but require a proof.
You can make a constructive proof by translating the production of regular language (easier thab the regular expression)
I don't rememver the proof but I know that every regular language in minimal form admits only production in the form of
A => tN
where t is terminal and N is non terminal
Then add a state in fsm for every non terminal production that recognize the terminal character and you pretty much proved the implications

Nice thread lol

There is a very simple and intuitive algorithm to convert any regular expression into a finite state automaton.
It's tedious to write the details, but you just need to know how to convert (ab, a*, a+ and a+b).

Finite automata can be nondeterministic.

so what. that's completely irrelevant for the topic of regular lanuages

Elsa Jean.

i know

automata? Is that like a weapon or what?

by definition, a language is regular iff there exists a deterministic finite automata that recognizes it. convert this automata to a NFA, and there you have it.

>by definition, a language is regular iff there exists a deterministic finite automata that recognizes it. convert this automata to a NFA, and there you have it.

What kibd of shit education you get?
Regular language are in grammars, it don't relate to automata.
A language is regular if it is in the forn(minimal)
S => nV
The equivalency of fsm and regular language is a theorem it's not a definition dumbass

Regular languages can be expressed as regular expressions

Regular expressions are finite state automata

Therefore
Regular languages can be expressed as finite state automata

Now go read your second semester textbook again.

please no bully

>do my homework, I dare you

you have one more picture cutie?

Regurlar expression are NOT finite state automata you mongoloid. They recognize the same class of languages but they are not the same thing.

> Regular languages can be expressed as regular expressions
Duh?

Oh sure, as long as it's 'a regular language' and not 'all regular languages', I'm fine.