Neither one will always be better than the other. The good thing is that any machine which can be represented by one can also be represented by the other.
A DFA will usually be much easier to read and follow, since each step will be unambiguous. With a given input, you will always follow the same paths to get a single output.
An NFA will often be easier to design, because you don't have to worry about avoiding multiple paths while creating it.
A deterministic Finite Automata)DFA will have a single possible output for a given input.The answer is deterministic because you can always feel what the output will be.A (Nondeterministic Finite Automata)NFA will have at least one input which will cause a "choice" to be made during a state transition,unlike a (deterministic Finite Automata)DFA one input can cause multiple outputs for a given (Nondeterministic Finite Automata)NFA.
A deterministic finite automaton will have a single possible output for a given input. The answer is deterministic because you can always tell what the output will be. A nondeterministic finite automaton will have at least one input which will cause a "choice" to be made during a state transition. Unlike a DFA, one input can cause multiple outputs for a given NFA.
DFA - deterministic finite automata NFA - non-deterministic finite automata
Deterministic finite state automata
DFA - Deterministic Finite Automata NFA - Non-Deterministic Finite Automata Both DFAs and NFAs are abstract machines which can be used to describe languages.
In general, finite state machines can model regular grammars. Deterministic finite automata can represent deterministic context-free grammars. Non-deterministic finite automata can represent context-free grammars.
The state machine described in the previous section is a deterministic finite automaton, in which each state is unique. What would make a finite automaton nondeterministic is if each state was not. For the example, if the state machine allowed the input to have any letter as the second letter for the word "person" to transition to the next, then the next state would not be unique, making it a nondeterministic finite automaton.
Finite automata (both deterministic DFAs and and non-deterministic NFAs) recognize regular languages while Chomsky (a linguist) defined regular languages no natural language is regular and so their use in linguistics is limited, in computer science however regular languages (and regular expressions in particular) are widely used.
Lexical analyzer generators translate regular expressions (the lexical analyzer definition) into finite automata (the lexical analyzer). For example, a lexical analyzer definition may specify a number of regular expressions describing different lexical forms (integer, string, identifier, comment, etc.). The lexical analyzer generator would then translate that definition into a program module that can use the deterministic finite automata to analyze text and split it into lexemes (tokens).
Hi, 1. DFA cannot use empty string transition and NFS can use empty string transition. 2. It use one machine but it use multiple machine. 3. DFA is one state transition but NFA react according to some symbol.
Finite Automata and Regular Expressions are equivalent. Any language that can be represented with a regular expression can be accepted by some finite automaton, and any language accepted by some finite automaton can be represented by a regular expression.
Push Down Automata (PDA) are a way to represent the language class called Context Free Languages(CFLs). PDA are abstract devices defined in automata theory. They are similar to Finite Automata(FA), except that they have access to a potentially unlimited amoun of memeory in the form of a single stack. PDA are of two types Deterministic and Non-Deterministic. Every PDA excepts a Formal Language. The language accepted by non-deterministic PDA are precisly the CFLs. If we allow a finite automaton to access two stack instead of just one, we obtain a device much more powerful than a PDA, equivalent to a Turing Machine(TM).