Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in
  • Spot Spot
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 132
    • Issues 132
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 1
    • Merge requests 1
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • SpotSpot
  • SpotSpot
  • Issues
  • #198
Closed
Open
Issue created Nov 28, 2016 by Alexandre Duret-Lutz@adlOwner

is_terminal, acceptance marks on transiant transitions, and terminal co-Büchi automata

It seems our definition of terminal automata is incorrect, as it allows transiant transitions to be accepting. A proper definition should be that an automaton is terminal if it accept any word that has a prefix passing through an accepting transition.

Our implementation of is_terminal should be fixed, as well as the various definitions of terminal automata. I think the definition of the HOA format is wrong as well.

Also I would like to see a test case calling is_terminal on a terminal co-Büchi automaton, and I'm wondering what scc_filter do on such automata.

Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking