Testing if a state is in final state

Please excuse my language, I am new to the topic.

I am trying to classify/find a class of game that describes games such as chess, tic-tac-toe as a finite state machine.

For those games, final states are easy to determine and to be efficiently checked.

My question is:

  1. is there a name for such class of games/programs?
  2. is there a game/program such that there is no way to determine the final state?


Does this state certify to be called as a deadlock?

I came across following problem:

Barrier is a synchronization construct where a set of processes synchronizes globally i.e., each process in the set arrives at the barrier and waits for all others to arrive and then all processes leave the barrier. Let the number of processes in the set be three and S be a binary semaphore with the usual P (wait) and V (signal) functions. Consider the following C implementation of a barrier with line numbers shown on left.

void barrier (void)   {     P(S);     process_arrived++;     V(S);     while (process_arrived !=3);     P(S);     process_left++;     if (process_left==3)      {         process_arrived = 0;         process_left = 0;     }     V(S); } 

The variables process_arrived and process_left are shared among all processes and are initialized to zero. In a concurrent program all the three processes call the barrier function when they need to synchronize globally. The above implementation of barrier is incorrect, because … ?

I know that after execution of below steps, this may lead to halting of all processes:

| #process | process_arrived | process_left | |----------|-----------------|--------------| | 1        | 1 blocked       |              | | 2        | 2 blocked       |              | | 3        | 3 blocked       |              | | 1        |                 | 1            | | 2        |                 | 2            | | 3        |                 | 3            | | 1        | 4               |              | <-- (1) | 3        | 0               | 0            | | 2        | 1 blocked       |              | | 3        | 2 blocked       |              | 

Above each line shows which process executes and what changes it does to two variables.

After last step all processes have started their 2nd attempt to synchronize and all have incremented process_arrived twice. However, 2nd increment of process_arrived by p1 is done (<-- (1)) before process_arrived is reset to 0. Thus even after all processes incremented process_arrived twice, its value is 2 and all processes keep busy waiting for it to become 3.

My doubt is does this state certify to called as deadlock as I dont see necessary requirements of deadlock hold here, namely circular wait and hold and wait. I guess process_arrived is a single resource here. How can a circular wait, hold and wait and hence deadlock occur with single resource? Or is there some other, more generalized definition of deadlock which I am missing? Quick google defines deadlock as “a situation, typically one involving opposing parties, in which no progress can be made”. Does that mean we can ignore necessary conditions of deadlock, in the context of computer science?

This is rather simple or subtle doubt, but I want precise understanding about whats called deadlock.

PS: I believe mutual exclusion requirement of deadlock is satisfied here as all updates to variables are protected by semaphore S

Boolean switch with a third state

Note: everyone has seemed to have misunderstood this question. Literally, everyone. I am not creating some sign-up form, I am not collecting personal data. The form of which this is a part is used to filter a large list of people by certain conditions.

I have a query creator form that helps the user to create a SQL query. All the possible variations of the query are listed and the user has to pick their required variations and run the query.


For an individual, the user can choose the Gender. From the outside it seems like a Boolean operation (Male or Female) but it has one more variations.

  1. Individual is MALE
  2. Individual is FEMALE
  3. Individual’s gender should not be considered (Can be MALE or FEMALE)

I have replaced radio buttons with a Switch like this:

Screenshot of widget

How do I represent the 3rd state?

Attention something went wrong – default view original state erorrs

Getting a lot of errors recently and finally found something in the logs but not able to solve it. Already saw other post with clearing the ui_bookmark table and changing FulltextFilter.php file but no result.

enter image description here

Terminated request GET x.hypernode.io/index.php?namespace=sales_order_view_rma_list_grid&search=&filters%5Bplaceholder%5D=true&paging%5BpageSize%5D=20&paging%5Bcurrent%5D=1&isAjax=true because client at is already gone

Many admin values have disabled state after upgrade to M.2.3.2

Right after upgrade Magento 2.3.1 -> 2.3.2.

I review disabled a lot of admin fields: Theme’s HTML Head area, General/web and a lot of fields are disabled.

I’ve tried to disable all modules – but no success. I try to compare db diff – I have no significant difference.

A lot of admin’s fields in admin can’t be changed.enter image description here

Best Practice – User Action in an Empty State

Is there an established best practice, backed up by research, that deals with an empty state with multiple CTA for the same action?

For example, this empty state from Dropbox:

enter image description here

There are multiple ways to ‘Create a folder’. However, I’m concerned that if a user learns on first usage that the way to create a folder is to click the blue ‘Create a Folder’ button on the right, will the user not be confused when this button disappears when the empty state is no longer empty?

I am thinking it might be best to show an arrow to a button, ‘Click here to create a folder’ to teach the user an action that will remain consistent – that button will always be where a user goes to create folders.

Turing machine where the next step is determined by the state and the symbols up to the read/write head

Given a modified type of turning machine where the next step is determined as followed:

$ \delta = Q\times \Gamma^* \implies Q\times \Gamma \times \{L,R\}$

where the next step of the machine is determined by the current state and whatever written on the tape up to the current point.

For example: if the tape content is $ a\_ab\_$ $ a$ , and the head is on the left $ , then the next step is determined by the state and the word $ a\_ab\_$ $ .

  1. How can I prove that unrecognized languages can be recognized with these types of machines?
  2. Do those machines contradict the Church–Turing thesis?

Informative answer would be really appreciated as I’m finding it hard to understand this subject specifically. Thanks in advance