Hi Paul,

At 01:50 PM 8/25/99 +1000, you wrote:
>
>  Haven't read this up recently, but it seems to me that these are two
>ways of looking at the same thing, reflecting whether the inputs are
[SNIP]

I am not sure I fully understand what you said (my mind is beginning to
shut down in expectation of sleep and concepts such as "sets of sub-states"
aren't processing too well right now <G>),but it seems to me that they two
machines are really different. One is totally synchronous,and the other is
partially asynchronous. For both, the determination of current state is
synchronous with the clock. However, the outputs can change asynchronously
on the one where the outputs depend upon the inputs together with the state.

If you don't allow the inputs to change until you are ready to clock them
in, then I think that you could convert from one to the other freely with
no functional difference. You just need to remember that for one of the
types, the outputs depend not only on the state,but on how you arrived at
that state. I think you accounted for this,though,in your sets of states.
If I understood what you said, in the case of the semi-synchronous machine
(Mealy,IIRC) you are splitting each state into a set of states. Each state
in the set is arrived at by only one input code. I think this would be a
way of converting from Mealy to Moore (provided that the inputs were not
changed asynchronously).

>  Am I missing something here?  Do I need to get tAoE out of the library
>again?  Maybe I should just buy it!

I am surprised. I would have thought that you WOULD own a copy! I do! I
must admit,though,it is very expensive,which is why I didn't buy it before
seeing the praise it got on this list.

>--
>  Cheers,
>        Paul B.
>


Sean

|
| Sean Breheny
| Amateur Radio Callsign: KA3YXM
| Electrical Engineering Student
\--------------=----------------
Save lives, please look at http://www.all.org
Personal page: http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/shb7
mailto:shb7@cornell.edu ICQ #: 3329174