From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, not especially familiar, but it sounds interesting. Personally I
am interested in learning formal grammars to describe data, and there
are well-established equivalences between grammars and automata, so
the approaches are somewhat compatible.
Can you cite any papers related to the approach you're attempting? I
do not know anything about morphism detection, morphism forests, etc.
Thanks,
Abram
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 2:03 AM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, not especially
From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John,
What kind of automata? Finite-state automata? Pushdown? Turing
machines? Does CA mean cellular automata?
--Abram
Hi Abram,
FSM, semiatomata, groups w/o actions, semigroups with action in the
observer, etc... CA is for cellular automata.
No, not especially familiar, but it sounds interesting. Personally I
am interested in learning formal grammars to describe data, and there
are well-established equivalences between grammars and automata, so
the approaches are somewhat compatible. According to wikipedia,
semiautomata have no
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:49 AM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In pattern recognition, are some patterns not expressible with
automata?
I'd rather say not easily/naturally expressible. Automata is not a
popular technique in pattern
Automata is usually used with a well-defined meaning. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata_theory
On the contrary, pattern has many different usages in different
theories, though intuitively it indicates some observed structures
consisting of smaller components.
These two words are rarely
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automata is usually used with a well-defined meaning. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata_theory
On the contrary, pattern has many different usages in different
theories, though intuitively it indicates some observed structures
consisting of
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:49 AM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In pattern recognition, are some patterns not expressible with automata?
I'd rather say not easily/naturally expressible. Automata is not a
popular technique in pattern recognition, compared to, say, NN. You
may want to
