
- Automata Theory - Applications
- Automata Terminology
- Basics of String in Automata
- Set Theory for Automata
- Finite Sets and Infinite Sets
- Algebraic Operations on Sets
- Relations Sets in Automata Theory
- Graph and Tree in Automata Theory
- Transition Table in Automata
- What is Queue Automata?
- Compound Finite Automata
- Complementation Process in DFA
- Closure Properties in Automata
- Concatenation Process in DFA
- Language and Grammars
- Language and Grammar
- Grammars in Theory of Computation
- Language Generated by a Grammar
- Chomsky Classification of Grammars
- Context-Sensitive Languages
- Finite Automata
- What is Finite Automata?
- Finite Automata Types
- Applications of Finite Automata
- Limitations of Finite Automata
- Two-way Deterministic Finite Automata
- Deterministic Finite Automaton (DFA)
- Non-deterministic Finite Automaton (NFA)
- NDFA to DFA Conversion
- Equivalence of NFA and DFA
- Dead State in Finite Automata
- Minimization of DFA
- Automata Moore Machine
- Automata Mealy Machine
- Moore vs Mealy Machines
- Moore to Mealy Machine
- Mealy to Moore Machine
- Myhill–Nerode Theorem
- Mealy Machine for 1’s Complement
- Finite Automata Exercises
- Complement of DFA
- Regular Expressions
- Regular Expression in Automata
- Regular Expression Identities
- Applications of Regular Expression
- Regular Expressions vs Regular Grammar
- Kleene Closure in Automata
- Arden’s Theorem in Automata
- Convert Regular Expression to Finite Automata
- Conversion of Regular Expression to DFA
- Equivalence of Two Finite Automata
- Equivalence of Two Regular Expressions
- Convert Regular Expression to Regular Grammar
- Convert Regular Grammar to Finite Automata
- Pumping Lemma in Theory of Computation
- Pumping Lemma for Regular Grammar
- Pumping Lemma for Regular Expression
- Pumping Lemma for Regular Languages
- Applications of Pumping Lemma
- Closure Properties of Regular Set
- Closure Properties of Regular Language
- Decision Problems for Regular Languages
- Decision Problems for Automata and Grammars
- Conversion of Epsilon-NFA to DFA
- Regular Sets in Theory of Computation
- Context-Free Grammars
- Context-Free Grammars (CFG)
- Derivation Tree
- Parse Tree
- Ambiguity in Context-Free Grammar
- CFG vs Regular Grammar
- Applications of Context-Free Grammar
- Left Recursion and Left Factoring
- Closure Properties of Context Free Languages
- Simplifying Context Free Grammars
- Removal of Useless Symbols in CFG
- Removal Unit Production in CFG
- Removal of Null Productions in CFG
- Linear Grammar
- Chomsky Normal Form (CNF)
- Greibach Normal Form (GNF)
- Pumping Lemma for Context-Free Grammars
- Decision Problems of CFG
- Pushdown Automata
- Pushdown Automata (PDA)
- Pushdown Automata Acceptance
- Deterministic Pushdown Automata
- Non-deterministic Pushdown Automata
- Construction of PDA from CFG
- CFG Equivalent to PDA Conversion
- Pushdown Automata Graphical Notation
- Pushdown Automata and Parsing
- Two-stack Pushdown Automata
- Turing Machines
- Basics of Turing Machine (TM)
- Representation of Turing Machine
- Examples of Turing Machine
- Turing Machine Accepted Languages
- Variations of Turing Machine
- Multi-tape Turing Machine
- Multi-head Turing Machine
- Multitrack Turing Machine
- Non-Deterministic Turing Machine
- Semi-Infinite Tape Turing Machine
- K-dimensional Turing Machine
- Enumerator Turing Machine
- Universal Turing Machine
- Restricted Turing Machine
- Convert Regular Expression to Turing Machine
- Two-stack PDA and Turing Machine
- Turing Machine as Integer Function
- Post–Turing Machine
- Turing Machine for Addition
- Turing Machine for Copying Data
- Turing Machine as Comparator
- Turing Machine for Multiplication
- Turing Machine for Subtraction
- Modifications to Standard Turing Machine
- Linear-Bounded Automata (LBA)
- Church's Thesis for Turing Machine
- Recursively Enumerable Language
- Computability & Undecidability
- Turing Language Decidability
- Undecidable Languages
- Turing Machine and Grammar
- Kuroda Normal Form
- Converting Grammar to Kuroda Normal Form
- Decidability
- Undecidability
- Reducibility
- Halting Problem
- Turing Machine Halting Problem
- Rice's Theorem in Theory of Computation
- Post’s Correspondence Problem (PCP)
- Types of Functions
- Recursive Functions
- Injective Functions
- Surjective Function
- Bijective Function
- Partial Recursive Function
- Total Recursive Function
- Primitive Recursive Function
- μ Recursive Function
- Ackermann’s Function
- Russell’s Paradox
- Gödel Numbering
- Recursive Enumerations
- Kleene's Theorem
- Kleene's Recursion Theorem
- Advanced Concepts
- Matrix Grammars
- Probabilistic Finite Automata
- Cellular Automata
- Reduction of CFG
- Reduction Theorem
- Regular expression to ∈-NFA
- Quotient Operation
- Parikh’s Theorem
- Ladner’s Theorem
Equivalence of Two Finite Automata
In this chapter, we will discuss the concept of the equivalence of two finite automata. The primary goal is to determine whether two given finite automata are the same or equivalent. By "same" or "equivalent", we mean that the two automata perform the same function, implying that they accept the same languages.
To identify whether two automata are equivalent, certain steps need to be followed. We will outline these steps and illustrate the process with examples.
Steps to Identify Equivalence
Let us see the steps involves to check whether two automata are equivalent.
Step 1: Transition Analysis for State Pairs
For any pair of states qi and qj in the two automata, the transition for input A ∈ Σ is defined by qA qB, where the transition from qi on A goes to qA, and the transition from qj on A goes to qB.
The two automata are not equivalent if for a pair qA qB, one is an intermediate state and the other is a final state.
This means that we need to −
- Select pairs of states, one from each automaton.
- Determine the transitions of these pairs on a given input A.
- Check whether the resulting states qA, and qB, are both final states or both intermediate states.
If qA is an intermediate state (non-final) and qB is a final state, then the two automata are not equivalent.
Step 2: Initial and Final State Consistency
In the next step, consider the initial state is a final state in one automaton, then in the second automaton, the initial state must also be a final state for them to be equivalent.
This means that, in the first automaton, if the initial and final states are the same, then in the second automaton, the initial and final states should also be the same.
Example to Illustrate Equivalence
Now let us see how we can apply these steps to check whether the following two automata are same or not. Consider these two automata below.


Check the initial and final states,
- Automaton A − Initial state q1, Final state q1.
- Automaton B − Initial state q4, Final state q4.
Since both automata have the same initial and final states, this condition is satisfied.
State Transition Pairs
Make pairs of states and check their transitions on inputs 'c' and 'd'.
Now let us see pairwise.
Pair q1 and q4
- For input c, q1 goes to q1 (final state)
- For input c, q4 goes to q4 (final state)
- For input d, q1 goes to q2 (intermediate state)
- For input d, q4 goes to q5 (intermediate state)
Since both transitions result in pairs of the same kind (either both final or both intermediate), they are equivalent so far.
Pair q2 and q5
- For input c, q2 goes to q3 (intermediate state)
- For input c, q5 goes to q7 (intermediate state)
- For input d, q2 goes to q1 (intermediate state)
- For input d, q5 goes to q6 (intermediate state)
Since both transitions result in pairs of the same kind (either both final or both intermediate), they are equivalent.
We will use the analysis table for a clear analysis of the above discussion.
Analysis Table
We will make a table to compare the state pairs for inputs c and d.
State Pair | Input C | Input D |
---|---|---|
(q1, q4) | (q1, q4) [both are final] | (q2, q5) [both are intermediate] |
(q2, q5) | (q3, q6) [both are intermediate] | (q1, q4) [both are final] |
(q3, q6) | (q2, q7) [both are intermediate] | (q3, q6) [both are intermediate] |
(q2, q7) | (q3, q6) [both are intermediate] | (q1, q4) [both are final] |
If the candidates of the pair are of same type, we proceed with the table. If one is intermediate and the other is final, then we do not need to process further they will not be equivalent.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we explained the steps to check whether two finite automata are the same or equivalent or not. Initially, we checked through pairs and then using a table which will be easier to write. By following the given steps, it is easy to check the equivalence in less time.
The main criteria involve analyzing state transitions and ensuring consistency in initial and final states. In the provided examples, automata A and B were found equivalent due to the match of final and intermediate states. This procedure can be applied to any finite automata to determine their equivalence.