Counters vs shift registers – is it true that a counter has a fixed state sequence but a shift register does not?

Introduction / Context:
Digital designers often differentiate counters and shift registers by their behavior across clock cycles. The statement claims that counters have a specified sequence while shift registers do not. This is misleading because many shift-register applications (ring, Johnson) also have well-defined state sequences.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Counters step through numeric sequences (binary, Gray, mod-N).
• Shift registers move stored bits left/right, optionally with feedback.
• Some shift-register configurations explicitly define state loops.

Concept / Approach:
A counter indeed has a predetermined state progression by design (for example, 0000 → 0001 → 0010 …). But a simple shift register loaded with a known seed and feedback forms specific sequences: a ring counter circulates a single 1; a Johnson counter circulates a pattern of ones and zeros; LFSRs produce maximal-length pseudo-random sequences with exact, repeatable order. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say shift registers do not have specified sequences—they often do when designed as counters using shift topology.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Datasheets label devices like 74HC4017 (Johnson decade counter) or 74HC194 (bidirectional shift register) that can be wired to form counters with deterministic sequences. Texts treat these as shift-register-derived counters.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Correct” ignores common shift-register counters. Asynchronous/synchronous qualifiers and clock duty cycle do not decide whether a sequence is specified; design and feedback do.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “shift register” always means arbitrary data movement. With feedback and initialization, they become deterministic sequence generators.

Final Answer:
Incorrect