From: Dan Doel <djd15@...>
Date: 2005-05-04T20:27:45+09:00
Subject: Re: Inverting a regular expression?

On Wednesday May 4 2005 6:06 am, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> Actually, it's not a very good point, as it isn't quite right.  See my
> response to this thread for the corrected method of conversion.

What was wrong with my method? DFAs are required to be fully defined/complete 
(at least, that's how I was taught), so there will never be a need to add a 
sink state, as you're required to have one already (only an NFA can be 
missing transitions).

And by "invert the accept states," I meant exactly what you said later: "make 
any accept state non-accepting and any non-accepting state accepting." I 
suppose I should have worded it more precisely.

My method was no different than yours.

-- Dan Doel