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?

Table Columns with Complex Structures (fields under it, that can have fields underneath too-like nested ones)in a few of its col

This is for Web Application. I am looking for tabular UIs that doesn’t have nesting but is able to show a child row under a parent row and those children can have further children and so on. My limitation is not to use nesting. Any leads or ideas around it?enter image description here

Comparison table for subelements

Can you please help me determine which comparison design is better for UX? I have documents with elements. Every element has 5 attributes. I need to compare those attributes across 3 to 5 documents. Number of elements can be max 10 for one document.

I try 2 designs for simple comparing feature.

  • This one as whole table:

  • And second one as toggable tabs:

Which one will be better for UX? Or should I use something completely different?

Thank you.

Are there concrete advantages for being proficient at social Skills in a table that rewards roleplaying these interactions?

I’m a new DM running D&D 5e’s LMoP with a small group of new players.

So far everyone is having fun even though we’re all learning on the fly, which I think is great. But there have been situations where I as a DM have had to adjudicate the use of social interactions against NPCs, but I’m unsure if I should be letting the dice determine outcomes of conversations against NPCs or if letting roleplay dictate how much information I can give out about the NPC’s reactions and words.

Let’s say that on our table, a player can get as much information from an NPC if they give out compelling arguments against an NPC while trying to convince them about something with Persuasion or Deception, or using in-character Intimidation. Would there be concrete benefits of having proficiency in these skills if a player can roleplay them well even without the proficiency bonus?

I’m trying to determine what would be most fun for the players in my table, and some players might feel it’s a waste of skill usage to level Skills they could be roleplaying out and getting similar results than rolling dice if they do not offer any concrete advantages. For example, I have a player that’s great at roleplaying out their character and more interested in making his character skillset be like the one he wants to roleplay, and another one who is interested mostly in making his character efficient at his role with the roleplay being incidental after the fact he chooses a skill that benefits the game mechanics.

I would probably change my method of adjudication and the use of dice depending on what’s most fun for the players.

Maybe I’m overlooking something here and should be ruling things way differently though…

I own the PHB and MM only (slowly working on getting the core books if the group actually liked to play), so if there is any info about this on the DMG then I’m not privy to it yet.

Using WITH together with CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE AS SELECT … in Postgres?

I would like to create a temporary table using a select statement that uses temporary views specified in a WITH statement (not the WITH statement of CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE).

e.g. something along the lines of

WITH a AS ( SELECT 1 foo, 2 bar  ), b AS ( SELECT 4 bar, 5 baz ) CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE foo AS SELECT * from a JOIN b ON ( 

If I comment out the CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE line, this works. How to create a temporary table using the query result of the SELECT, without rewriting the temporary views into a single query?

PhpMyAdmin ALTER TABLE command gets ignored when table definition is imported

I am running PhpMyAdmin v4.8.0.1. I exported a table and thus, have the following structure:

CREATE TABLE `wp_site_settings` (   `settings_id` bigint(20) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,       `usage_limit_per_user` varchar(255) NOT NULL ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;  -- -- Indexes for dumped tables -- ALTER TABLE `wp_site_settings`   ADD PRIMARY KEY (`settings_id`); 

As we can see from the above code, the ALTER TABLE part is present after the CREATE TABLE. I want this ADD PRIMARY KEY to be a part of the CREATE TABLE itself, so that it can be exported as:

CREATE TABLE `wp_site_settings` (   `settings_id` bigint(20) UNSIGNED NOT NULL,       `usage_limit_per_user` varchar(255) NOT NULL,    PRIMARY KEY (`settings_id`), ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; 

I need it in the above way because I am trying to use the above in a custom WordPress plugin. If the ADD PRIMARY KEY is performed using the ALTER TABLE command, the whole command gets ignored and the resultant table does not contain the PRIMARY KEY.

This is just an example of one table. I need the solution to work for other 20+ custom tables as well, so any workaround/fix is appreciated.

NOTE: I am aware that the ALTER TABLE was separated intentionally as per + rfe #1004 Create indexes at the end in SQL export

SQL Server: How to unpivot from pivoted table back to a self referencing table

How does one unpivot from a pivoted table such as this?

Table A:

+----+------------+--------+--------+--------+ | Id | Level0     | Level1 | Level2 | Level3 | +----+------------+--------+--------+--------+ | 0  | TMI        |        |        |        | +----+------------+--------+--------+--------+ | 1  | TMI        | A      |        |        | +----+------------+--------+--------+--------+ | 2  | TMI        | A      | B      |        | +----+------------+--------+--------+--------+ | 3  | TMI        | A      | B      | C      | +----+------------+--------+--------+--------+ | 4  | TMI        | A      | B      | D      | +----+------------+--------+--------+--------+ 

Back to self referencing table like this:

Table B:

+----+-----------+----------+--------+ | Id | LevelName | ParentId | Level  | +----+-----------+----------+--------+ | 0  | TMI       |          | Level0 | +----+-----------+----------+--------+ | 1  | A         | 0        | Level1 | +----+-----------+----------+--------+ | 2  | B         | 1        | Level2 | +----+-----------+----------+--------+ | 3  | C         | 2        | Level3 | +----+-----------+----------+--------+ | 4  | D         | 2        | Level3 | +----+-----------+----------+--------+ 

I can go from Table B to Table A, but how to go from Table A to Table B?

Entering data fields in a table where rows have a hierarchy

Situation: A store is adding in how much money has been spent on products in their store that week. They can enter the figures either at the individual product level, or at the brand that product belongs to.

So, either at NestlĂ© level, or at KitKat, Milkybar, Aero…

I want to make sure the user has the flexibility to enter figures at whichever level of hierarchy they want, but also don’t want to end up with duplicate or mismatching figures by someone entering in a value at Parent AND at each Child.

This is fine when they first start – we can just disable the Parent / Child field once they choose which level of the hierarchy for that product they’re using.

enter image description here

HOWEVER, the issue I’m having is how can we allow the user to change which level they’ve been using? For various reasons they may need to change from a global Parent (NestlĂ©) figure to specifying a value for each product instead (or if they’ve done it at Child level (KitKat) they may want to actually just specify at Parent level instead).

I don’t want to fill the fields with toggle icons as that’s visually noisy. I don’t want to add a global toggle for Parent / Child because there are many brands out there (Coca Cola, Mars etc) and the user may still wish to enter figures at child level for one brand but Parent level for another).

What is a simple method to allow the user to change from one level of hierarchy they’ve already specified up/down to the other level?

The only thought I currently have is that if the user clicks a Disabled field they will be given a prompt asking if they now wish to add figures at Child level, but that seems like an accessibility fail, and it isn’t really that obvious that a disabled field can be clicked.