 |
GetTextbooks.co.uk
Compare Prices & Save up to 90% |
|
|
|
| Login | Sign up | My Wish List |
 | | An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata by Peter Linz ISBN-10: 9780763714222 ISBN-10: 0-7637-1422-4 ISBN-13: 9780763714222 ISBN-13: 978-0-7637-1422-2 Hardcover 2000-10-01 Jones & Bartlett Publishers Find Lowest Price |
Editorials | ||
Book Description This text covers all the material essential to an introductory theory of computation course for undergraduate students. The text has a solid mathematical base, and provides precise mathematical statements of theorems and definitions, giving an intuitive motivation for constructions and proofs. Proofs and arguments are clearly stated, without excessive mathematical detail, to help students understand the basic principles. The text is illustrated with integrated examples of new concepts as well as an abundance of exercises to aid in the development of problem solving skills. | ||
Reviews | ||
It's ok The book was required for a course, and I found it to be pretty straightforward, if a little dull. It's written at a simpler level than Sipser or Hopcroft and Ullman, which might make it appropriate for someone who is a little apprehensive about the topic (although I think both of those are better books). My biggest complaint was that after finding the first two errors in the text (in an exercise solution and an example), I wasn't comfortable trusting the book to tell me what it meant. The errors were listed in the errata, so if you're using the book, print out a copy of the errata, and mark your book up. Finding these errors for yourself is a good test of your understanding, but it's also more pain than necessary. Use with caution. | ||
Too advanced for most CS students Many of the other reviews are negative. I have a nagging feeling that the book was simply too advanced for several, though not necessarily all, of the reviewers. Look, most undergraduate computer science majors might not need a book as formal as this one. It really is best suited for computer scientists with a strong maths inclination. Many CS students study specific languages, some algorithms, and [hopefully] the hardware of an abstract Neumann machine. But concepts like the left quotient of a language are really only used by those who want a grand view across all computing languages. And who possibly want to design a new language. This is beyond the capabilities of most CS majors. And so is this book. | ||
It's a sleeper I haven't found any reason for someone to buy this book. The writing sytle is dry. The examples are complex and poorly explained. The concepts are covered adequately, but often with a wordiness that leaves the reader bewildered (if still awake). As an "Introduction" manual, this text fails miserably. I'd have given it zero stars, if possible. It just does not do anything well, and does too many things poorly. There's too many well written texts in the world to waste time with this one. | ||
Simply godawful I had to purchase this for my school's Intro to CS Theory course. Linz' utter ineptitude towards writing is what gives this book 1 star. Examples throughout chapters are sparse and relatively worthless. Sample problems at the end of the chapter, in contrast, are ridiculously difficult, and the solutions in the back don't offer any explanation whatsoever towards the answers. This is the only book I have ever read that actually made me feel dumber for reading it. It's simply demeaning. Rather than explaining or justifying his logic, as he should to the target audience of this book, he simply uses "it's obvious that..." repeatedly for sample problems and solutions. A ridiculously complex problem's solution in the back of the book will be whittled down to two lines at best, half of which says something along the line of "It's blatantly obvious that the answer is ___, and you're stupid for not realizing it." If you're actually assigned graded work from this book, may god have mercy on your soul. | ||
Boring subject This subject is confusing in general, I have this professor and he's really confusing, but when I read his own book it's actually better that him. | ||