TOPIC 3.

2 FINITE STATE MACHINE - STATE REDUCTION

The philosophy of state reduction is basically to have a system made of many states reduced
to a system having a fewer number of states. Reducing the number of states results into
simpler and smaller system, less expensive system and thus economically feasible system.
The outputs of the two systems MUST be the same.
Example 1:
The following example shall make this argument clearer:
Minimize or reduce the states of the following Finite State Machine:
0

0
D
B

0
1

A
1
0
0

1 E

1
C

To minimize the above 5 DFM, the following steps are followed:

Step 1: Create state transition table for the DFM

State transition table:
Inputs
STATE 0 1
A B C
B B D
C B C
D B E
E B C
In this State Transition Table, A is the original state and E is the final state.
Step 2: Form sets of non-final and final states by establishing EQUIVALENCES and forming
the respective sets.
(i) 0 – Equivalence: In this case, both non-final and final states are indicated as below:
Page 1 of 5
Non-final state set: {A,B,C,D}
Final set: {E}
Thus,
0 – Equivalence: {A,B,C,D}{E}
(ii) 1-Equivalence: In this case, sets are formed from the sets of “0 – Equivalence” by
comparing the variables of the non-final states where if A and B belong to same values or
sets when inputs 0 and 1 are applied to them. If the inputs resolve to the same variable within
the set, them they bear 1-Equivalence.
0 1
A B C
B B D
Table 1
Table 1 indicates A bears 1-Equivalence with B.
0 1
B B D
C B C
Table 2
Table 2 indicates that C bears 1-Equivalence with B.
0 1
C B C
D B E
Table 3
Table 3 indicates that C does not bear 1- Equivalent with D. In this case variable E appears
while it is outside the set. Therefore, A,B,C belong to the same set, while D forms another
set, as follows:
1 – Equivalence: {A,B,C}{D}{E}
(iii) 2 – Equivalence
In this case, sets are formed from the sets of “1 – Equivalence” by comparing the variables of
the non-final states where if A and B belong to same values or sets when inputs 0 and 1 are
applied to them, resolve to the same variables within the set, them they bear 2-Equivalece. In
this case, only the set {A,B,C} will be tested as below:
0 1
A B C
B B D
Table 4
From Table 4, A and B do not bear 2-Equivalence, D appears in the group.

Page 2 of 5
 0 1
A B C
C C B
Table 5
This indicates that A and C bear 2-Equivalence. Therefore, form a new set for B.
Thus: (A,C} {B} {D} {E}
(iv) 3 – Equivalence
Check whether the set {A,C} bears any 3-Equivalence:
0 1
A B C
C C B
Table 6
Table 6 indicates that A and C bear 3-Equivalence. Thus the sets become:
(A,C} {B} {D} {E}
Note: The states for 2-Equivalence and 3-Equivalence have similar sets. This makes the final
step of evaluation. This is the final step, and thus the states are as follows:
Final states are: {A,C} {B} {D} {E}

STEP 2: Design the final DFM

Note: That the new states are A,C; B; D; E and since state A was originally the starting state,
now, the state bearing A will be the starting state. Thus. A,C now is the starting state.
0

1 0
D
B
0
1

A,C
1
0

MINIMIZED DFM

EXAMPLE 2:
Below is a state diagram of a DFM with multiple final states. Conduct the reduction of the
states of this DFM.

Page 3 of 5
 0,1

B 1 1
D
D F

1
0 0
0
1

E
E
A
0/0
C
1 0

DFM WITH MULTIPLE FINAL STATES

Draw the Finite transition table

STATE INPUTS
0 1
A B C
B A D
C E F
D E F
E E F
F F F
Note:
(i) A is the starting state.
(ii) C, D and E are final states.
0-Equivalence: {A,B,F} {C,D,E}
1-Equivalence: {A,B} {F} {C,D,E}
2-Equivalence: {A,B} {F} {C,D,E}
END
Thus, the states are: (A,B); (F); (C,D,E).

The final Finite State Machine is as the diagram below:

Page 4 of 5
 0

D 1
A,B C,D,E
F

0,1

REDUCED FINITE STATE MACHINE

Note: That the 6-states have been reduced to 3-states.

Page 5 of 5