Pavel G. Sutyrin wrote: > Dear Sage developers, > > Firstly, thanks for the great and beautiful system that is joy to work and > play with. > > While trying to model deterministic finite automata over Sage > (multi-)graphs, > I've run into the following: paths are represented as lists of vertices, > regardless > of edges. Superficial investigation shows that both sage.graph and > networkx are somewhat grounded on this notion of path. > > But! For finite automata and other word-accepting machines to be correctly > represented paths should be considered as sequences of labeled edges, not > vertices, as far as two vertices may be connected by differently labeled > edges, and that is essential.
Okay. > > Generally speaking, we plan to represent finite, pushdown and a new > generalization of pushdown automata (D-Graphs) over Sage graphs, > leveraging existing machinery. > > Long-term goal is to work towards a general and consistent library of > formal language constructs, such as automata, grammars and so forth. > Recent merge of Words seems to be of support. > > Looking for thoughts and advice, Welcome to the community! We look forward to your contributions. I'm not sure exactly what thoughts or advice you are looking for. Are you proposing a change to Sage? Are you asking about other efforts to do similar things in python or Sage? Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
