We don't need just something that can change state though. We need something that can also sense the state.

We discussed that problem in terms of saying you're at one state, how can you change that state to get to a neighboring state?

We apply that 45 to the state action pair.

We see an 'a'. We end up in state 2, and state 2 is an accepting state, so we accept.

And we can denote that by the probability that we get a Result state, S prime given that we start in state, S, and apply action, A.

That you will surely experience state after state.

We get here now, this state, we get a reward of 1, so that state gets a utility of 1.

The state that is missing is the state in which we would have quotes, but we are outside of tags.

From state 2 on c, we go to state 3.

From state 2 on d, we go to state 3.

We can say what actions would lead to that state.

In search we have a configuration or a state, and then we search to the next state, and we keep going like that.

If we were on state 2 and we see a 1, we go to state 3.

Now we update this state.

We come in in state 1, and on a we go to state 2.

We see that a finite state machine accepts a string s if there exists even one path from the start state to any accepting state that follows s.

Now for finite state machine state, that was pretty easy.

That percentage does not vary much from state to state.

We start here in state 1. We see a 2, so we go over to state 2.

We saw that same state back here in chart position 0.

We get a belief state space that looks something like this.

Now we represent that big finite state machine internally as edges.

If there was a single goal state, we could say what other arcs are coming into that goal state.

In each case, we'd be updating only the action we took, associated with that state, not the whole state.

Suppose we have the parsing state

So we look at the state

And you love that state.

And you love that state.

And that makes your belief state change and that makes your belief state change.

But the problem is that that state has no relation whatsoever to this state.

Starting in a start state, on a b we transition to the middle state, on an a we end up in the third state, which is an accepting state.

That could work, so this is a possible state that we could be in.

Or we decided to add this state based on reasoning about state 2.

We can convert nondeterministic finite state machines down into deterministic finite state machines.

Given a particular state we look and see is it a terminal state?

we wanted to state that we're the active part in this conflict.

So the first thing that we did is we calendared our objectives, our state standards.

So if I give this definition in state 3, it's going to tell me, no, we can't get to state 1 or any accepting state for that matter.

From a rainy state we have 2 outbound transitioning, 1 to a sunny state and 1 to a rainy state.

But state 1 is not an accepting state, so we don't accept this string. 'cc3' start here in state 1.

So, remember in problem solving, we start off in a state, and it's a single state, not a belief state.

There's 1 accepting state at state 1, and then we have these few others.

We have a 3 dimensional state space.

Now, we follow state and local regulations.

We start off in an initial state.