CSE 105 Theory of Computation

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction to Computability Theory
Advertisements

CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.
CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
(CSC 102) Discrete Structures Lecture 14.
1 COMP 382: Reasoning about algorithms Unit 9: Undecidability [Slides adapted from Amos Israeli’s]
Theory of Computation 1 Theory of Computation Peer Instruction Lecture Slides by Dr. Cynthia Lee, UCSD are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike.
Week 7 - Wednesday.  What did we talk about last time?  Set proofs and disproofs  Russell’s paradox.
CSE 20 DISCRETE MATH Prof. Shachar Lovett Clicker frequency: CA.
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture14: Recap Prof. Amos Israeli.
CHAPTER 4 Decidability Contents Decidable Languages
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture11: The Halting Problem Prof. Amos Israeli.
CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.
CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.
CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.
1 Undecidability Reading: Chapter 8 & 9. 2 Decidability vs. Undecidability There are two types of TMs (based on halting): (Recursive) TMs that always.
CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.
CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.
CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.
Computability Universal Turing Machine. Countability. Halting Problem. Homework: Show that the integers have the same cardinality (size) as the natural.
CSE 20: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science Prof. Shachar Lovett.
Based on slides by Patrice Belleville and Steve Wolfman CPSC 121: Models of Computation Unit 11: Sets.
Theory of Computation 1 Theory of Computation Peer Instruction Lecture Slides by Dr. Cynthia Lee, UCSD are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike.
Donghyun (David) Kim Department of Mathematics and Computer Science North Carolina Central University 1 Chapter 4 Decidability Some slides are in courtesy.
Week 7 - Wednesday.  What did we talk about last time?  Proving the subset relationship  Proving set equality  Set counterexamples  Laws of set algebra.
CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.
CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.
CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
The Acceptance Problem for TMs
CIS Automata and Formal Languages – Pei Wang
The Halting Problem.
CSE 105 theory of computation
CSE322 PUMPING LEMMA FOR REGULAR SETS AND ITS APPLICATIONS
Automata, Grammars and Languages
CSE 105 theory of computation
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
This statement is false.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
CSE 20 – Discrete Mathematics
Busch Complexity Lectures: Reductions
Lecture12 The Halting Problem
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
CSE 105 theory of computation
Homework: Friday Read Section 4.1. In particular, you must understand the proofs of Theorems 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, so you can do this homework. Exercises.
Busch Complexity Lectures: Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
CSE 105 theory of computation
CSE 105 theory of computation
Decidable Languages Costas Busch - LSU.
Discrete Math for CS CMPSC 360 LECTURE 43 Last time: Variance
Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation
Intro to Theory of Computation
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
CSE 105 theory of computation
CSE 105 theory of computation
CSE 105 theory of computation
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Intro to Theory of Computation
Cpt S 317: Spring 2009 Reading: Chapter 8 & 9
Instructor: Aaron Roth
CSE 105 theory of computation
Turing Machines Everything is an Integer
Intro to Theory of Computation
CIS Automata and Formal Languages – Pei Wang
Intro to Theory of Computation
CSE 105 theory of computation
CSE 105 theory of computation
CSE 105 theory of computation
Presentation transcript:

CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at http://peerinstruction4cs.org. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://peerinstruction4cs.org.

Co-Turing-Recognizable Languages Our current classes of langauges: Regular Context-free Decidable Recognizable Co-recognizable We now have the new class “co-recognizable” Language A is co-recognizable if the complement of A is recognizable Co-recognizable does NOT mean “a language that is not recognizable”

Preparing for DIAGONALIZATION! Para, Para, paradox…

Warm-up All regular languages are decidable. There is a number 5 written above this sentence. TRUE FALSE Not enough information to decide between (a) and (b) Other TRUE FALSE Not enough information to decide between (a) and (b) Other

This sentence is false. TRUE FALSE Not enough information to decide between (a) and (b) Other

Liar’s Paradox “This sentence is false.” This has been perplexing people since at least the Greeks in 4th century BCE (2300 years!) What are some key features of this that make it a paradox?

Two more examples This sentence is 10 characters long. This sentence is in French. TRUE FALSE Not enough information to decide between (a) and (b) Other TRUE FALSE Not enough info Other

Barber’s Paradox i.e., Russell’s Paradox A certain town has only one barber (a man). All the men in the town are clean-shaven. For all men m in the town, the barber shaves m if and only if m does not shave himself. Question: Does the barber shave himself? YES NO Not enough information to decide between (a) and (b) Other

Making Lists Suppose you have many, many lists. So many, in fact, that some of your lists are lists of lists (to help you organize your lists), and some of them even include themselves. Ex: “list of lists I have created today.”

List Organization Question You are aware that self-reference can cause problems, and you want to be careful of the lists of lists that include themselves. So you make a list of all lists that do not include themselves, called NON-DANGER-LIST. Question: Should NON-DANGER-LIST include itself? YES NO Not enough information to decide between (a) and (b) Other

Grandparent Paradox (Time Travel Paradox) You travel back in time and prevent one pair of your biological grandparents from ever meeting each other (assume this prevents your birth). Pop culture version:

A few more examples Decidability Proofs

Prove that the class of decidable languages is closed under FOO Prove this using direct proof (not construction) The operation FOO is defined as: FOO(A,B,C) = (A U B) intersect C Proof:

Prove that BAR is decidable Prove this using construction The language BAR is defined as BAR = { <D> | D is a DFA and the language of D does not contain any strings of length 10 } Proof:

Prove that BAR is decidable (different approach) Prove this using construction The language BAR is defined as BAR = { <D> | D is a DFA and the language of D does not contain any strings of length 10 } Proof:

Cardinality Infinity and Infinities To infinity, and beyond! (really) Cardinality Infinity and Infinities

Set Theory and Sizes of Sets How can we say that two sets are the same size? Easy for finite sets! What about infinite sets? Georg Cantor (1845-1918), who invented Set Theory, proposed a way of comparing the sizes of two sets that does not involve counting how many things are in each Works for both finite and infinite Two sets are the same size if there’s a one-to-one, onto mapping from one to the other

One-to-one and Onto f is: One-to-One Onto Correspondence (both (a) and (b)) Neither

One-to-one and Onto f is: One-to-One Onto Correspondence (both (a) and (b)) Neither

One-to-one and Onto f is: One-to-One Onto Correspondence (both (a) and (b)) Neither

One-to-one and Onto f is: One-to-One Onto Correspondence (both (a) and (b)) Neither

One-to-one and Onto f is: One-to-One Onto Correspondence (both (a) and (b)) Neither

One-to-one and Onto f is: One-to-One Onto Correspondence (both (a) and (b)) Neither

The TM Acceptance Problem ATM

ATM = {<M,w> | M is a TM, M accepts w} ATM is: A language An operation A set of strings A Turing Machine None or more than one of the above This is CRITICAL to understand, because most of Thursday’s lecture will be about ATM