Consider the following finite-state automaton A over E = {a, b, c}:A = (E, {qo, 91; 92, 93 } , 8, 90, {92})%3Dwhere d ={(q0, a, q1), (q1, b, q0), (q1, b, q2), (q2, a, 91), (92, b, q2), (q2, a, q3), (q3, c, q3), (q3, a, q2)}.Draw the automaton A as a transition graph. Give a regular expression accepting the same languageas the automaton A.Justify your answer, e.g. by following the state-elimination procedure.

Answered: Image /qna-images/answer/d7d3923e-3e40-4b0e-9186-3cc6bdaec30f.jpg

Answered: Consider the following finite-state…

Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach (7th Edition)

7th Edition

ISBN:9780133594140

Author:James Kurose, Keith Ross

Publisher:James Kurose, Keith Ross

Chapter1: Computer Networks And The Internet

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem R1RQ: What is the difference between a host and an end system? List several different types of end...

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Consider eight points on the Cartesian two-dimensional x-y plane. a g C For each pair of vertices u and v, the weight of edge uv is the Euclidean (Pythagorean) distance between those two points. For example, dist(a, h) : V4? + 1? = /17 and dist(a, b) = v2? + 0² = 2. Because many pairs of points have identical distances (e.g. dist(h, c) V5), the above diagram has more than one minimum-weight spanning tree. dist(h, b) = dist(h, f) Determine the total number of minimum-weight spanning trees that exist in the above diagram. Clearly justify your answer.
Removing state q1, find a PDA with three states that accepts the same language as the PDA in Example 7.2. (Page 14 in the chapter 7's slide).
Computer Science A way to avoid overfitting in Deep Neural Networks is to add an additional term R to the loss function L (for example L can be the cross entropy loss) as follows: L(w) + λR(w). (1) You know that one choice for R is the L2 norm, i.e. R(w) = ||w||2 2 . One friend of yours from the School of Maths told you however that there’s no need to use squares (i.e. powers of two) and that you can achieve the same effect by using absolute values, i.e. the L1 norm: R(w) = ||w||1. Would you agree with him? i.e. is the use of the L2 norm equivalent to using the L1 norm for regularization purposes? Justify your answer
Please Give me right answer.
Create an R function pwfun(), which computes values of the piece-wise (mathematical) function pwfun defined in the following way: x < -1 Its graph is as follows. e pwfun(c(-2, 0.5, 3)) 208 pwfun(x) = - x = c(-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3.2) pwfun(x) 4 2 0 0 0 39.24 -2x-2 0 x²-1 18 Your R function pwfun() should also accept x as a vector of arbitrary length and return vector of the same length with entries defined as values of the mathematical function pwfun, evaluated at the corresponding entries of vector x. Here are some input vectors and what you should get as a corresponding output. pufun(-1) .-1≤x≤1 1
Exercise 12.9 Given a weighted (connected) undirected graph G = (V, E, w), with m =n+ 0(1) edges (i.e., the number of edges is at most the number of vertices plus some constant), give an O(n)-time algorithm to compute the minimum spanning tree of G. Prove the correctness and the running time of your algorithm. (Hint: Think of how one can eliminate an edge from being in the MST.)
Please answer the following question in depth with full detail. Consider the 8-puzzle that we discussed in class. Suppose we define a new heuristic function h3 which is the average of h1 and h2, and another heuristic function h4 which is the sum of h1 and h2. That is, for every state s ∈ S: h3(s) =h1(s) + h2(s) 2 h4(s) =h1(s) + h2(s) where h1 and h2 are defined as “the number of misplaced tiles”, and “the sum of the distances of the tiles from their goal positions”, respectively. Are h3 and h4 admissible? If admissible, compare their dominance with respect to h1 and h2, if not, provide a counterexample, i.e. a puzzle configuration where dominance does not hold.
Assume that void some_fct (int X); has time complexity Ⓒ(X) for (k 0; k <= N; k k+1) { some fct (k); // } Final answer: TCfor-k = O(_ =

Recommended textbooks for you

Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach (7th Edi…

Computer Engineering

ISBN:

9780133594140

Author:

James Kurose, Keith Ross

Publisher:

PEARSON

Computer Organization and Design MIPS Edition, Fi…

Computer Engineering

ISBN:

9780124077263

Author:

David A. Patterson, John L. Hennessy

Publisher:

Elsevier Science

Network+ Guide to Networks (MindTap Course List)

Computer Engineering

ISBN:

9781337569330

Author:

Jill West, Tamara Dean, Jean Andrews

Publisher:

Cengage Learning

Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach (7th Edi…

Computer Engineering

ISBN:

9780133594140

Author:

James Kurose, Keith Ross

Publisher:

PEARSON

Computer Organization and Design MIPS Edition, Fi…

Computer Engineering

ISBN:

9780124077263

Author:

David A. Patterson, John L. Hennessy

Publisher:

Elsevier Science

Network+ Guide to Networks (MindTap Course List)

Computer Engineering

ISBN:

9781337569330

Author:

Jill West, Tamara Dean, Jean Andrews

Publisher:

Cengage Learning

Concepts of Database Management

Computer Engineering

ISBN:

9781337093422

Author:

Joy L. Starks, Philip J. Pratt, Mary Z. Last

Publisher:

Cengage Learning

Prelude to Programming

Computer Engineering

ISBN:

9780133750423

Author:

VENIT, Stewart

Publisher:

Pearson Education

Sc Business Data Communications and Networking, T…

Computer Engineering

ISBN:

9781119368830

Author:

FITZGERALD

Publisher:

WILEY

SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS

Consider the following finite-state automaton A over E = {a, b, c}: A = (E, (90, 1, 92, 93 ), 8, 90, {42 }) %3D where & = {(qo, a, q1), (q1, b, q0), (q1, b, q2), (q2, a, q1), (92, b, q2), (92, a, 93), (93, C, 93), (93, a, q2)}. Draw the automaton A as a transition graph.