construct transition table from equivalence of dfa-minimization

I’m trying to minimize a DFA.

From the state transition diagram, I have formed the table:


And the 0-equivalence is : {q0,q1,q3,q4,q5,q6,q7},{q2}

And 2-equivalence is {q0,q4},{q6},{q1,q7},{q3,q5},{q2}, as well as 3-equivalence.

If I write q0q4 together, what would I write in as value in the table?

Now what is the minimized DFA,transition table?

How can you stay safe from spyware used by governments?

It is a fact that antivirus software can’t detect all the spyware/viruses/malware that exist. And when they get detected, new ones are created.

An example is the pegasus spyware for ios created by the NSO group. There is also an android version available. And there are many spyware for windows computers which claim to be undetectable. And there are probably many more for different OS that are not made public.

So what can you do about a possible spyware on your device that your antivirus/antispyware doesn’t detect? Apart from being careful in the first place?

Do you think Qubes OS is an answer for people worried about a problem like this?

Reduction from Independent set to Restricted independent set and vice versa

Independent Set

Input: undirected graph G = (V, E) and an integer k ≥ 0.

Output: does G have an independent set S ⊆ V of size k (Yes or No).

Restricted Independent Set

Input: undirected graph G = (V, E), a vertex u ∈ V , and aninteger k ≥ 0,

Output: does G have an independent set S ⊆ V of size k that includes u? (Yes or No).

Is it possible to reduce independent set to restricted independent set and is it possible to reduce restricted independent set to independent set?

Reductions from non decision problems

I want to show a minimization problem $ Y$ has no approximation factor of 1.36. To be more specific the problem $ Y$ is the exemplar distance problem between two genomes. Could I reduce from the min vertex cover problem instead of the decision version of the vertex cover problem. The problem I am having with reducing from the decision version is that a vertex cover of size k maps to the $ Y$ of size $ \leq ck$ , where $ c$ is a constant. A decision version for problem $ Y$ for me makes no sense, as there will always be a brekpoint distance between two genomes. I tried to research on the internet but I always only find reductions from decision problems. Could we reduce from non-decision problems.

Also when doing reductions from the vertex cover problem. I can’t assume the given instance $ G,k$ is such that k is the size of the optimal vertex cover right? $ k$ is just any size of a Vertex cover.

Can Counterspell be used to prevent a Mystic from using a Discipline?

The most recent version of the Unearthed Arcana Mystic (V3) can be found here.

The way I read it RAW Counterspell has not effect on Psionic Disciplines but this seems extremely over powered and I find it difficult to believe that this is RAI. What are your thoughts and what approach have you taken on your tables?

Below is my reasoning for the above conclusions.

Counterspell states that:

  • You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell

This costs one reaction and further clarify’s exactly when a reaction can be used to cast Counterspell:

  • which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell

This raises a couple of questions:

  1. Does using a Discipline qualify as casting a spell for the purposes of Counterspell?
  2. Is it possible to ‘see’ a Mystic use a Discipline being that it has no verbal, somatic or material components?

The Mystic V3 UA-Mystic pdf offers some help here but is far from conclusive and arguably contradictory. In regards to the first question; It states the following at various different points in the document:

  • Psionics is a special form of magic use, distinct from spellcasting

This would seem to suggest that using a Mystic Discipline is not the same as casting a spell.

  • Psionic Disciplines are magical and function similarly to spells

This statement suggests that Mystic Disciplines and spells function similarly and that using a Discipline may well count as ‘casting a spell’

  • Psionics and spells are separate effects, and therefore their benefits and drawbacks overlap. A psionic effect that reproduces a spell is an exception to this rule.

This statement suggests that using a psionic Discipline may count as ‘casting a spell’ if it is a psionic effect that reproduces a spell.

I find this statement particularly unhelpful as nowhere in the document does it clarify what Mystic Disciplines duplicate spell effects or how similar the two have to be for this to apply.

Some Disciplines are very similar to existing spells in 5e others are not and some while similar in some aspects while differ considerably in others. For example take the Immortal discipline ‘Bestial Form’ – Flight:

‘You transform your body, gaining traits of different beasts. Wings sprout from your back. You gain a flying speed equal to your walking speed.’

when compared to the Transmutation spell ‘Fly’:

‘You touch a willing creature. The target gains a flying speed of 60 feet for the duration. When the spell ends, the target falls if it is still aloft, unless it can stop the fall.’

Both abilities allow the target to fly so you can argue that this duplicates the effect of a ‘Fly’ spell. However, the Mystic Discipline does not require concentration last an hour instead of 10 mins and in most cases will give you a fly speed of 30ft rather then 60ft, making it far from clear cut.

There are numerous other examples like Occluded Mind from the Telepathic Contact Discipline and Zone of Truth… Similar effects but certainly not an exact duplicate.

My approach would be to use quite broad brush as to when a psionic discipline ‘duplicates’ a spell effect to catch as many disciplines as possible in this definition. That said we still have the issue raised in question 2 above to address which makes all of the above something of a mute argument.

As stated above you can use a reaction to cast Counterspell when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.

Even assuming the Mystic Discipline counts as casting a spell it would still not be possible for a normal caster to Counterspell it because Mystic ‘Disciplines don’t require the components that many spells require. Using discipline requires no spoken words, gestures, or materials. The power of psionics comes from the mind.’

RAW this means a mystic using a discipline shows no outward sign that they are doing so, so there is nothing for the person casting Counterspell to see that can trigger the reaction needed to cast Counterspell.

So RAW Counterspell cannot be used on Psionic Disciplines.

How should I handle a player attacking from the top of a tree?

There is a player in my group whose character is developed around staying in trees, climbling, Athletics, Acrobatics, and such. He likes to climb trees and then leap down onto enemies from the tree branch in the beginning, but how should this be properly handled?

According to rules, he should take fall damage for falling off 10+ feet onto an enemy, but I consider the fact he is skilled in doing this as per his background.

There is no actual skill that he has that says he would nullify fall damage or instead apply it to the enemy, or that he should gain any benefit from this action.

Should I simply give him advantage on the attack roll, ignore fall damage, and call it a day?

Phishing urls from

I was looking into my websites traffic and found few entries from a subdomain for domain. And when I looked into it, it was transparent proxying my website.
On checking further, I found this twitter post which states that the domain is owned by Sky High Networks which is a subsidiary of McAfee.

These are a few more domains:
1. Suspicious domains
2. Some more

My website URL is not in the list, but it has a similar sudomain, something of the sort of

On checking SSL certificate some have Skyhigh Networks Inc. in owners name and some have McAfee LLC

What are these URLs? Are these phishing URLs?

I don’t understand why SHN or McAfee needs to have these URLs? Can anyone help me understand, what’s all this? Whats happening?

How to form a sphere from Voxels

I want to form a Sphere given radius from blocks given size. And can’t figure out the code / algorithm. Any help appreciated.

Edit: It doesn’t need to be filled, better opposite

Edit: I tried this

function ds(r)     for tx=-r, r do         for ty=-r, r do             for tz=-r, r do                 if math.sqrt(math.pow(tx, 2)  +  math.pow(ty, 2)  +  math.pow(tz, 2)) <= r-2 then                     Terrain:FillBlock(, ty, tz),,1,1), material)                 end             end         end     end end 

But it’s very much iterations and so slow