Case Study 2: Classifying MADFA Construction Algorithms

  • Derrick G. Kourie
  • Bruce W. Watson


The previous chapter illustrated the potency of software correctness by construction for developing a new and elegant algorithm. In this chapter we focus on classifying and taxonomising algorithmic problems by relying on correctness by construction thinking.


Start State Regular Language Transition Graph Structural Invariant Deterministic Finite Automaton 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 10.
    J. Daciuk, S. Mihov, B.W. Watson, R.E. Watson, Incremental construction of minimal acyclic finite state automata. Comput. Linguist. 26(1), 3–16 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 16.
    E. Fredkin, Trie memory. Commun. ACM 3(9), 490–499 (1960)Google Scholar
  3. 43.
    B.W. Watson, Minimizing acyclic deterministic finite automata, Ph.D., FASTAR Research Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Pretoria, South Africa, 2011Google Scholar
  4. 44.
    B.W. Watson, Taxonomies and Toolkits of Regular Language Algorithms, Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Faculty of Computing Science, September 1995Google Scholar
  5. 45.
    B.W. Watson, in CIAA 2000, ed. by Yu, Păun. Directly constructing minimal DFAs: Combining two algorithms by Brzozowski (2000), pp. 242–249Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derrick G. Kourie
    • 1
  • Bruce W. Watson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.FASTAR Group, Information ScienceStellenbosch UniversityStellenboschSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations