Question 1. (a) Reduce the primitive flow table shown below to a minimum number of rows.

The input is to the circuit represented in the table are X and Y. The circuit has one output, J. (Note that shaded states represent stable states) XY = 00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Answer 1. (a). In the following primitive flow table (which is in Moore form) there are some redundant states. The stable states (shaded in the table), which have the same output for a given input, potentially are equivalent. Redundant states need to be searched systematically. The XY = first step is to group the states 00 01 11 10 J which are potentially equivalent by 1 checking the table. For example, 2 3 0 1 we see that outputs of the states 1, 2 5 4 0 2 5, and 9 are all 0. They form a 3 1 6 0 3 group. The sates 2 and 8 form 4 2 7 1 4 another group as both have the 5 same output. The states 3 and 12 2 7 0 5 form a group. Note that the states 7 6 8 12 0 6 and 10 form a different group 7 1 4 1 7 despite having the same stable 8 9 4 0 8 state as the states 3 and 12. However, their outputs are 9 2 10 0 9 different. 10 1 11 1

01 2

11 4 6

10 3 -

J 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

1
5 1 -

2
2 2 8 -

3
7 7 12

4
-

5
1 9

6
4 4 11

7
10

8
2 8 -

9
1 9

10
10

11 12

10
10

8 -

11
6

12

1 0

11
6

12

Initial groupings for all possible equivalent states are: (1,5,9); (2,8); (3,12); (7,10); (4,11); (6)

(b) For the reduced table you have produced in part (a), apply a state assignment which will make it race free. Complete the output map such that glitches are eliminated. Question 2. The state diagram of a sequential circuit is given as below. (a) Tabulate the related state table. (b) Reduce the state table to a minimum number of states using an implication chart. (c) Draw the reduced state diagram. 0/0 b 0/0 0/0 d 1/0 e 0/0 1/0 0/0 1/1 0/0 f 1/0 0/0 g a 1/0

Next, each group needs to be tested if they are really equivalent

Test for the states 1 and 5

00 1 2 01 11 10

1 5

2 2

3 7

Because the states 3 and 7 are not in the same group, the states 1 and 5 can not be equivalent. 15

Test for the states 1 and 9

00 1 01 11 10

c 1/0 1/0

1 9

2 2

3 10

Because the states 3 and 10 are not in the same group, the states 1 and 9 can not be equivalent. 19

Test for the states 5 and 9

00 5 9 01 11 10

5 9

2 2

7 10

Because the states 7 and 10 are in the same group, the states 5 and 9 are equivalent. 59

Test for the states 2 and 8

00 2 8 01 11 10

Since we converted the Moore type primitive flow table into a Mealy form, number of rows can be reduced further.
Hint: Two rows of a reduced primitive Mealy flow table are compatible if and only if there are no state conflicts in any columns.

5 9

2 8

4 4

Because we already found above that the states 5 and 9 are equivalent, the states 2 and 8 are also equivalent. 28

Test for the states 3 and 12

00 3 12 01 11 10

1 9

6 6

3 12

Because we already found above that the states 1 and 9 are not equivalent, the states 3 and 12 also can not be equivalent. 3 12

So, inspection of reduced primitive flow table above reveals that (1, 3), (6, 12), and (2, 4, 5) are compatible rows. The states 1 and 3, the states 6 and 12, and the states 2, 4, and 5 can be merged into one row, reducing the total number of rows to four. Inspection of relatively small tables may be sufficient to identify the compatible rows. For complicated tables, a merger diagram can be used instead to help in identifying compatible rows. Merger diagram for the reduced flow table is shown below. 12 7 On the merger diagram, points which form a line (1 and 3, 6 and 12) or a close geometric shape (2, 4, and 5 ) can be combined. 7 and 4 can also be combined, but since 4 has already been included in a group (2, 4, 2 and 5), 4 and 7 should not be combined. In this case final rows would be (1, 3), (6, 12), (2, 4, 5) , and (7). Alternatively, if 4 annnnd 7 are combined, then the 3 final rows would be (1, 3), (6, 12), (2, 5) , and (4, 7). Both solutions are valid and give the same number of rows. If we use the first solution, then the final reduced primitive flow table in Mealy form consists of only 4 rows. The final primitive flow table is: Next state 00 01 2 11 6 10 Output

Test for the states 7 and 10

00 7 10 01 11 10

1 1

4 7 11 10

Because the states 4 and 11 are in the same group, the states 7 and 10 are equivalent. 7 10

Test for the states 4 and 11

00 4 11 01 11 10

6 4

2 8

4 7 11 10

Because we already found above that the states 2 and 8 and 7 an 10 are equivalent, the states 4 and 11 are also equivalent. 4 11

Final groups representing equivalent states are: (1); (2,8); (3); (4,11) (5,9); (6); (7,10); (12)

Present state
1,3 2,4,5 6,12 7

1 5
5 1

3
7

2
2 -

The states 8, 9, 10, and 11 are redundant and can be removed from the table. Unstable states corresponding to reduced states are also replaced by their equivalent states. New reduced flow table in Mealy form (note that Mealy form leads to more reduction of rows) is given below. Present state
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12

4 6
4

12 7

00 0 0 -

01 0 -

11 1 0 -

10 0 0 1

Next state 00 01 2 11 4 6 10 3 -

Output 00 0 0 01 0 11 1 0 10 0 1 0

(b). For a race free state assignment, we can use one of the universal state assignment for 4 row tables. Two of them are given below First type of state assignment:
A BC

1
5 1 -

Second type of state assignment:

A BC

2
2 2 2 -

3
7 7 12

0 a1 d1 b1 c1

1 b2 c2 a2 d2

0 a b c f

1 e d g

4
-

00 01 11 10

00 01 11 10

5
1 5

6
4 6

7 12

If 4 states renamed as a, b, c, and d, then the flow table becomes Reminder: Some of the output completion rules are given below (For more information on this, consult Fundamentals of Logic design by Charles H Roth, section 25.4, pages 641-643). 10 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 (0) 0 (*) 1 (*) 0 (1) 1

Present state
a b c d

Next state (XY = ) 00 01 b 11 c 10

Output J (XY = )

a b
b a

a
d

b
b -

b c
b

c d

00 0 0 -

01 0 -

11 1 0 -

Note that the following replacements were made in the reduced primitive flow table: 1=3=a; 2 = 4 = 5= b ; 6 = 12 = c ; 7 = d Each state assignment must be completed with a corresponding output mapping. After the state assignment using the first universal state assignment table and output mapping the following race free flow table is obtained.

3 3

(0) 0

Answer 2. 0/0

1/0 c

Present state
000 a1 111 a2 011 b1 100 b2 010 c1 101 c2 001 d1 110 d2

Next state (XY = ) 00 01 b2 b1 11 c1 c2 10

Output J (XY = )

b 10 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0/0 d 1/0 e 0/0 0/0 1/0 1/1 0/0 f 1/0 0/0

a1 a2 b1 b2
b1 b2 a1 a2

a1 a2
d1 d2

b1 b2
b1 b2 -

b1 b2 c1 c2
b1 b2

c1 c2 d1 d2

00 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

01 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

11 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

1/0 1/0 0/0 g

(a) The first step is to derive a state table for the given state diagram. For example, starting at the state a, the next state is b and the output is 0 when the input (x) is 0, the next state is c and the output is 0 when the input (x) is 1. Present state a b c d e f g Next state x=0 x=1 b c d e f g d e f g d e f g Output x=0 x=1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Another assignment can be made with fewer rows by using the second universal state assignment table and output mapping.

Present state
000 a 001 b 011 c 101 d 100 e 110 f

Next state (XY = ) 00 01 b 11 f 10

Output J (XY = )

a b
b e a -

a
d

b
b -

b c
b c

c d
-

00 0 0 0 -

01 0 0 0 -

11 0 1 0 1 0

10 0 1 0 1 -

(b) Checking each pair of states for possible equivalency can be done systematically by means of an implication chart. In this chart, on the left side along the vertical are listed all the states except the first, and across the bottom horizontally are listed all the states except the last. The result is a display of all possible combinations of two states with a square placed in the intersection of a row and column where the two states can be tested for equivalence.

Step 1. Two states that are not equivalent are marked with a cross in the corresponding square.

Step 3. Final chart. From the chart, we can conclude that the equivalent states are (a, b, d) and (c, e, g) (cross sections of shaded squares). b

' ' '

b c d e f g

b-d c-e b-f c-g b-d c-e b-f c-g d-f e-g

c d f-d g-e e d-f e-g f g a f Since a b d, and c e g, the reduced state table is obtained by replacing b and d by a, and e and g by c. b

'

d-f e-g

' '
c

' '
c d

b-f c-g a

d-f e-g b

d-f e-g d

'
e

'
e f

Step 2. Some of the squares have entries of implied states that must be further investigated to determine whether they are equivalent or not. Therefore, the next step is to make successive passes through the chart to determine whether any additional squares should be marked with a cross. A square in the chart is crossed out if it contains at least one implied pair that is not equivalent.

Present state a,b,d c,e,g f

Next state x=0 x=1 a c f c a c

b c d e f g

b-d c-e d-f e-g

There are 3 states in the reduced table. Rearranging table with new state assignments gives the following reduced state table; Present state a b c Next state x=0 x=1 a b c b a b Output x=0 x=1 0 0 0 0 0 1

b-f c-g

b-d c-e

'

f-d g-e

b-f c-g

d-f e-g

' '
c

d-f e-g

(c) The reduced state diagram is illustrated below. b-f c-g a d-f e-g b d-f e-g d

'
e f

1/0 b 0/0

Output x=0 x=1 0 0 0 0 0 1

0/0 a

1/1 0/0 c

1/0